Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to everyone who is attending this hugely significant debate. It is a privilege to open the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a piece of legislation that would give dying people, under stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives. I welcome the debate on this hugely important issue.

Let me say to colleagues across the House, particularly new colleagues, that I know this is not easy—it certainly has not been easy for me—but if any of us wanted an easy life, I am afraid we are in the wrong place. It is our job to address complex issues and make difficult decisions. I know that for many people this is a very difficult decision, but our job is also to address the issues that matter to people. After nearly a decade since the subject was debated on the Floor of the House, many would say that the debate is long overdue.

For my part, I have tried incredibly hard to ensure that the tone of the debate has been—and continues to be—robust, of course, but most importantly respectful and compassionate. I am pleased that, for the most part, that has been the case. I can be confident that that same tone of respect and compassion will be adopted by colleagues today, whatever views they hold. That is particularly important as we have people in the Public Gallery who have a strong personal interest in this issue. They hold a range of views. Some of them have lost loved ones in difficult and traumatic circumstances, and others are themselves terminally ill.

I want to pay a huge and heartfelt tribute to those families and to every single person who has contacted me about this issue, and in many cases shared their own very personal stories of loss and death. I know from my own personal experience of grief that telling your story over and over again takes energy, courage and strength. I am incredibly grateful to them all. It is their voices and their stories that have inspired me.

Such stories are difficult to hear, but it is vital that they are heard as they are at the heart of the debate. They show that the law is failing people. Where that is the case, we have a duty to do what is right to fix it. Those here today or watching at home are dealing with the real consequences of the failings of the current system. I will start by recounting just a few of their stories.

Warwick was married to his wife Ann for nearly 40 years. She had terminal peritoneal cancer, which meant that she could not breathe properly. She spent four days gasping and choking, remaining awake throughout despite being given the maximum dose of sedatives. She eventually died of suffocation. She had begged Warwick to end her life, but as he stood over her with a pillow he could not do what she asked as he did not want that to be her final memory of him. Ann had excellent palliative care, but it simply could not ease her suffering.

Tim fell in love at first sight when he met his wife Louise—he proposed after just three days. But Louise got cancer, twice, and at the end, the morphine simply could not control her pain. In desperation, she managed to smash a small glass bottle and tried to take her own life, not realising that her toddler daughter had got into bed with her. Tim found her. He says,

“You get to a point where you stop praying for a miracle and start praying for mercy.”

Former police officer James waved is mum off as she embarked on her final trip, to Dignitas. She had terminal vasculitis. James desperately wanted to accompany his mum and hold her hand during her final moments, but he knew, because of his job as a police officer, that it was just not possible. Indeed, she insisted that he must not go with her, so she went alone—no one to hold her hand, and no proper goodbye or funeral. Those are just a few examples of the heartbreaking reality and human suffering that far too many people experience as a result of the status quo. the public know this.

I have always been keen to ensure that my politics stays rooted in the world beyond Westminster. It is clear that public opinion is very much in favour of a change in the law. Polling shows consistently that around 75% of people would like to see the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. These findings are significant, but it may not be that surprising that most people believe, as I do, that we should all have the right to make the choices and decisions we want about our own bodies. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a choice between life or death; we are talking about giving dying people a choice of how to die.

Let us examine what that choice currently looks like. I do not have a legal background but I have always been driven by a strong sense of injustice. If I see a problem, I will do everything I can to try to solve it. Indeed, in this job, we all do that every week and every day, whether here in Parliament or in our constituencies. When four former directors of public prosecutions, including the Prime Minister, two former presidents of the Supreme Court and many lawyers all agree that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to do something about it.

Intentionally helping another person to end their life is currently illegal under the Suicide Act 1961, and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. This includes family and friends helping someone who is terminally ill to die, both in the UK and overseas. Existing guidance does not stop people from being investigated by the police, adding fear, guilt and further trauma to grieving families. The law is not clear, and it does not protect individuals, families or medical professionals. That drives people to very desperate measures.

What about coercion? Senior King’s Counsel have said:

“There is currently no established system for identifying abuse or coercion in advance of a person’s death or for helping vulnerable people to make end of life decisions.”

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I have been a nurse for more than a quarter of a century, and in that time I have worked mostly in intensive care as a specialist. I have worked with compassionate and skilled, well-trained clinicians who have been taught to spot coercion—it is fundamental to our practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to suggest that clinicians cannot spot coercion in these cases?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I thank him for it, and for his years of service as a nurse. I have spoken to many medical professionals about this issue, and they say that this is part of their job. They are very skilled and they work closely with patients, particularly dying patients, to assess their needs and to have those difficult and delicate conversations. As the KCs said, at the moment we check for coercion in cases where people have taken their own lives—when someone is dead. The Bill would make coercion a criminal offence with a sentence of up to 14 years.

Surely, by putting a legal framework around this difficult situation, we will provide an extra level of safeguarding. One psychotherapist, who is terminally ill herself, said to me recently that coercion happens when things are hidden away. The Bill would bring things out into the open. Surely, that must be safer for everyone. Let us look at what the absence of a robust legal framework looks like.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House the time to debate the Bill this morning. She references coercion, and I understand her point about the two medics, but medics will not be able to see or hear everything at all times. People will not be put beyond challenge, because subsequent to the death, if a relative claims coercion of another relative, investigation will remain. I am entirely unclear how, without peradventure, two clinicians can claim that there had been no coercion at any point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me: within a robust system, we will check for coercion, but we do not have any of that now. At the moment, the person will be definitely be dead. We have to look at the status quo. Putting in layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion must be better than the system that we have now.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Colleagues are right to raise questions around coercion. I hosted a phone-in on LBC where people rang in and said, “I feel like I have to end my life because I recognise how difficult it is for my family to see me suffering.” The limit in the Bill, however, is that someone must have only six months to live according to two doctors and a judge, which I genuinely believe massively reduces the risk of coercion. Are we really saying that people are so desperate to bump off their families that if they were told that they had six months to live, they would escalate the process and do it sooner?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—she is absolutely right. The very strict criteria in the Bill add extra layers of safeguarding, which, again, we just do not have at the moment.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I have the deepest respect for my hon. Friend, but one thing that concerns me is societal or systemic coercion. At the moment, elderly people in our society pay thousands of pounds a month to be in a care home. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that an elderly person in a care home who has been given six months to live would not think to themselves, “I’m a burden. I have been given six months to live. If I end my life now, I can save my family between £25,000 and £55,000”? That really concerns me.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As I have said, at the moment, we have no idea whether that person would take action because we are not having those conversations. By getting two medical professionals and a High Court judge involved, we would be putting this out in the open. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows clearly that coercion tends to happen the other way; what tends to happen is that families try to prevent the person from making the choice of an assisted death.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one more intervention.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not the case that the conversations that patients will have with doctors will bring out whether they have been coerced or are suffering intolerably? The criteria are about suffering, not whether somebody worries that they are a burden.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree absolutely. Those conversations, which are not taking place at the moment, are very important. I will make some progress.

There has rightly been a lot of discussion about palliative care in recent weeks, and I am convinced that a significant amount of that discussion would not have taken place without the introduction of the Bill. It is a long overdue conversation, and I am very pleased to see it happening.

I have met with the Association for Palliative Medicine, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder and Marie Curie, and last week I was delighted to attend the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for hospices. I also attended the fantastic Kirkwood hospice, which serves my constituency of Spen Valley. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff and volunteers across the country in the palliative care sector, who do some of the most vital work in society. We must do more to support them, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House in that important endeavour. That is why I have included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.

Of course, assisted dying is not a substitute for palliative care—it is not an either/or. We have some of the best palliative care in the world in this country, and, when it can meet the needs of terminally ill people, it is second to none. However, when it cannot, surely the choice of an assisted death should be one component of a holistic approach to end of life care.

The comprehensive report by the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, found no indications of palliative care deteriorating in quality or provision in places where assisted dying had been introduced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Ever mindful of what the hon. Lady has said about the criteria, I remind her that Belgium started off with a simple project like the one she refers to but it deteriorated and expanded to include sufferers of dementia and under-18s—children. What guarantees do we have that this legislation will not end up with a situation like that in Belgium, in which case anything goes? Is that what the hon. Lady wants? I do not want that. Does she?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but let us be very, very clear. Huge amounts of research has been done by the Health and Social Care Committee, and indeed by myself and others. The model being proposed here is nothing like what happens in Belgium. It is nothing like what happens in Canada. There are strict, stringent criteria, and if the House chooses to pass the Bill, those criteria cannot be changed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on the measured way in which she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. Whatever side of the House and whatever side of the debate, I would like to recognise that—it is not always the case. But is it not the case that the Bill crosses a new and irreversible medical red line for doctors and nurses? Is it not the case that in other Bills we have seen in this House over the years, the safeguards invariably become obsolete over time, and so the safeguards in this Bill, however well meant, should be seen as temporary safeguards and not immutable safeguards?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely not. I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. In countries where a Bill of this nature has been implemented, the safeguards have been in place and the boundaries have never changed. I will come on to talk about that.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments she is making. However, we have seen, time and again, excessive judicial activism taking the words in this House and expanding their meaning into places we had not foreseen. What reassurances can she give that the words in her Bill will be respected by the judiciary and that we will not find ourselves in a decade’s time in a totally different place that this House did not intend?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The courts have repeatedly put this issue back to Parliament. This is not their domain. This is the legislation. There are strict criteria.

Coming back to palliative care, in situations where pain simply cannot be managed, the result is deaths that are so horrific that the person themselves can spend hours, and in some cases days, in unimaginable pain as they die. I want to bring the debate back to the issue that we are trying to solve. For their loved ones, no matter how many joyful and happy memories they have, they also have the trauma that comes from watching someone you love die in unbearable agony and fear. That memory stays with them forever.

Rebecca’s mum Fiona developed metastatic brain cancer at the age of 69. She had very good palliative care, but her pain could not be managed, and she died begging and screaming for assistance to end her suffering. Her family and the medical team treating her cried beside her bedside as it took her 10 days to die.

Lucy’s husband Tom was 47, a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonising death. Tom vomited faecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the faeces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated and was conscious throughout. Lucy pleaded with the doctors to help. The doctor treating him said there was nothing he could do. His family say that the look of horror on his face as he died will never leave them. Lucy now has post-traumatic stress disorder, which is quite common for families who lose loved ones in such harrowing circumstances.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful and moving stories she is telling. A constituent of mine watched her mum suffer from pancreatic cancer. Unable to keep any food down, she basically starved to death. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to see a loved one die? Does she also agree that we did not come into this place to shy away from difficult choices, but to listen to our constituents and make better laws for everyone?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am so sorry to hear that story from her constituency. We all have stories from all our constituencies, and she is absolutely right that we are here to make difficult decisions. On her example there, I have been astonished by the number of people who have been in touch with me to tell me about the terminally ill loved ones who have starved themselves to death out of desperation—something that takes far longer than we may imagine and is just horrific for everyone involved. That is currently legal, and doctors are required to assist the patient through this agonising process. How can we allow that, but not a compassionate and humane assisted death?

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) in commending my hon. Friend for the way she has made sure that this binary debate has not been a polarising one. I started the debate where she is now, but I have moved to opposing the Bill by the stories I have heard of disabled people who have had “do not resuscitate” put on their medical records without their permission, or who have been stopped by strangers in the street and been told, “You would be better off dead.” I know she will say that we are voting on the specifics of her Bill, but we are also voting on a principle. Does she agree that there should be a precautionary approach, and does she honestly believe the legislative process gives us the time to be sure that we are making the right decision?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to some of those points later in my speech. Let us be very clear: the title of the Bill refers to terminally ill adults, not disabled people or elderly people, as another hon. Member referred to. The criteria are very clear.

I come back to the status quo, which is the problem we are trying to address. If people want to avoid the trauma of some of the harrowing circumstances I have described, they can have an assisted death—just not in this country. If they have £10,000 or £15,000, they can make the trip to Switzerland or elsewhere but, because of the current legal position, it is often a deeply distressing and very lonely experience, shrouded in secrecy, with people feeling like criminals as the fear of prosecution hangs over them.

Ilana’s husband Crispin had late-stage motor neurone disease. He was paralysed, and Ilana is a wheelchair user, but at his request she took him on a traumatic and difficult journey to Switzerland. She describes the intense stress and anxiety she felt due to the total secrecy of their plan—and we can only imagine what the journey home was like, on her own, with an empty seat beside her.

There are also those terminally ill people who take matters into their own hands. Gareth’s father Norman served in the Welsh Guards. He was a strong man, but his final five years were full of pain and discomfort. He had prostate cancer, which he lived with for 15 years. He was given good initial hormone therapy and chemo, but the cancer spread everywhere and the pain could not be eased. One day, when it all became too much, he went into his garden with the gun he owned and shot himself. Gareth’s sister rushed to his house and found him. Gareth said his father just wanted the pain to stop.

Then there is Peter, from Mirfield in my own constituency, who stopped me in a car park a couple of weeks ago to tell me the harrowing story of his beloved wife, who was diagnosed with metastatic cancer aged 52. The treatment was ineffective and her symptoms were unbearable. She took an overdose of her medication, and Peter found her and took her to hospital. She recovered and he brought her home, but the following day she made another attempt to take her own life, in a way that is too awful to describe. Peter found her dead, and he spent the next eight hours being questioned by the police.

It is estimated that more than 600 terminally ill people take their own lives every year. Often patients will store up medication. Josh, a 33-year-old from Huddersfield went to coach his local kids’ rugby team one Saturday and came back to tell his mum all about it. He found her dead. Lisa, who was terminally ill, had stored up her medication and taken her own life.

Our former colleague Paul Blomfield, the previous MP for Sheffield Central, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue since his dad Harry took his own life in 2014, alone in his garage, after being diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. Language matters: Harry was not suicidal; he loved life, but he had watched too many of his friends have lingering, degrading deaths and he did not want that for himself. But, like the others, he could not tell Paul and his family of his plan, as they would have been complicit and could have faced prosecution. How many precious days and weeks did Harry miss out on as a result of having to take action while he was still physically able to do so? Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

What I have been struck by in recent weeks as I have listened to Members from across the House is the clear agreement that the current situation is neither sustainable nor dignified. Almost everyone in this House agrees that the status quo is unacceptable in terms of dignity, palliative care and end of life. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is about how we depart from the unacceptable situation that we currently face? Is today’s vote not the first stage of an important discussion about we improve the end of life for hundreds and hundreds of people across this country?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am setting out what we are dealing with now. This cannot be right, and surely we have a duty to do something about it.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

Some of the most important voices in this debate are, of course, those of people currently living with a terminal illness. Having a terminal diagnosis is perhaps one of those situations where it is very hard, if not impossible, to know how we would feel. I have met many terminally ill people over recent weeks and every one of them is in my thoughts today.

Sophie, who is here today, was diagnosed with stage 4 secondary breast cancer, which has spread to her lungs, liver and pelvis. She is allergic to opioids, so she knows that her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. She has a 17-year-old daughter. All she asks is to have the choice to say goodbye to her daughter at a time of her choosing, in circumstances that she can have some control over, and for her daughter to be able to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is.

Nathaniel, who also joins us today, has stage 4 incurable bowel cancer, which is now in his liver and brain. Like many of us, Nat says that he does not know whether he would choose an assisted death or not, but he simply cannot understand why anyone would want to deny him the choice. He says:

“I wish to live as fully as I can and for as long as possible. But when the time comes”,

Nat also wants

“the right to die with dignity and compassion”.

Another very emotional lady came up to me at a recent interfaith event. She and her husband thanked me for putting the Bill forward. She said, “Kim, I am a proud Christian and I am guided by my faith. But I also have terminal cancer and I want the right to choose a compassionate death.”

There has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs. I fully respect those beliefs and do not intend to say much more about this, other than that I know there are a range of views within faith communities. Indeed, some of the most powerful conversations that I have had have been with people of faith, including in my own constituency. People of different religions have said that although they would not choose an assisted death for themselves or their family, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice?

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress, if I may. I hope that I have set out the problem that clearly exists. Now allow me to set out how the Bill can address that problem and, most importantly, do so safely and effectively.

If the Bill were to become law, it would contain the most robust and strongest set of safeguards and protections in the world. Very strict eligibility criteria and multiple layers of checks and safeguards are embedded in the Bill, none of which, as we have seen, exist at the moment. I made a conscious decision to name it the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, rather than anything else. That title can never be changed and ensures that only adults who were dying would ever come within its scope. As such, the Bill is not about people choosing between life and death; it is about giving dying people with six months or less to live autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their deaths.

The Bill does not apply to people with mental health conditions. It does not apply to the elderly. It does not apply to people with chronic health conditions, and it does not apply to disabled people, unless, of course, they have a terminal illness, in which case they would and should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

One group of people who are not often talked about are the learning disabled. Clause 9(3)(b) says that if an assessing doctor has any doubt as to the capacity of the person, they may refer them for a further psychiatric assessment. If the Bill is voted through today, will the hon. Member engage in a debate about whether that language should be strengthened from “may” to “must” and whether the training and experience required of the assessor should be strengthened as well?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and highlights a community who we must consider in light of the Bill. I would absolutely be open to that conversation in Committee; it is a very valid point.

There are different views within the disabled community. As Professor of Disability Research, Sir Tom Shakespeare says that it is unacceptable that people with disabilities continue to face social stigma and inequalities, but that it would be a mistake to conclude that we should oppose legalising assisted dying for terminally ill people until those wider problems are fixed. He says that it is paternalistic and wrong to imply that inequalities will be resolved by reducing choices, and that a clear, transparent legal framework for end-of-life choice is better for everyone. He is right. There is, of course, still work to do in the fight for equality for people with disabilities, but once again it is not an either/or. I will campaign alongside many others in this place for those rights, but I will also campaign for the rights of terminally ill people, because their rights are as important as anybody else’s rights.

[Barry Gardiner]

I have huge respect for the hon. Lady for the way that she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. My concern is that she has focused today on the individual and the individual choice, but we are here to legislate for society as a whole. In legislating, what we are saying if we pass the Bill is that it is okay to take that choice—[Interruption]—and there will be some people who have six months of their life to go who will then feel, “Ought I to do this? Is this something that I now should do?” That brings into play a whole set of considerations—“Is it better for my family? Is it financially better for my family?”—in ways that, at the moment, are out of scope. Rather than simply focusing on the individual suffering, which we all recognise is acute, we must broaden the debate to the impact that the legislation will have on society as a whole.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I suggest that the Bill will give society a much better approach towards end of life. We are already hearing conversations about dying and death which I do not think we have heard enough in this country. We have to take a holistic view. Indeed, that is what happens in other countries and other jurisdictions. Having those deep and meaningful conversations about death and dying is really important. My hon. Friend’s comments bring me on nicely to the protections and safeguards in the Bill.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

A decade ago, I voted against a similar Bill, because I felt that perhaps it was not perfect and there were more things that I needed to know. My hon. Friend is right that we have not talked about death for the 10 years since or considered any legislation. The truth is that if we vote against her Bill today, it will be the end of the conversation once again for another decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How many people will go through the situations I have described if it is another 10 years before we address this matter?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid, because I am conscious that lots of hon. Members want to speak; I know Mr Speaker is conscious of that as well.

Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding. The person requesting assistance must have mental capacity and a settled wish at every stage. That means they must repeatedly demonstrate that they understand the information relevant to their decision, the ability to retain that information, and to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. We know that capacity can fluctuate which is why it is assessed at every step of the process.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am sorry but I am not going to take any interventions, as I need to make progress.

The court must speak to one of the doctors and can hear from anybody else they deem necessary. If there is any evidence of coercion, the court will not approve the request, and if evidence emerges subsequently, the court order could be revoked. It is also important to note that the person can change their mind at any time, with periods of reflection built in. Having consulted at the highest levels in the judiciary and the medical profession, I know that they can and will fulfil those safeguarding responsibilities and that they have the expertise to do so.

Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said earlier, this is not brand new territory for doctors. Doctors, working in partnership with other clinicians, are already required to manage complexity in end-of-life decision making. I followed the request of the British Medical Association that doctors should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate, but if they do participate, they will receive appropriate training and support. Doctors should be able to use their professional judgment when and if a conversation takes place, taking their cue from the patient, as they do for many other issues. I welcome that patient-centred approach. Many doctors feel the change in the law would safeguard clinicians and patients by making everything explicit.

When it comes to the detail of what assisted dying would look like, we have the benefit of drawing on the experience of 31 jurisdictions around the world. I could talk extensively about the international experience of assisted dying. The Health and Social Care Committee report did a brilliant job of that, and this Bill has looked at best practice as well as models which I and many others would not be comfortable with our having here in England and Wales.

Reflecting on their experience, clinicians in Australia say:

“through deep and meaningful conversations between doctors, patients and their loved ones we can dispel fear, reduce suffering, bring death and dying out of the shadows, and so allow patients and their families a better quality of life and quality of death”.

As one Australian Member of Parliament said:

“We have brought ‘behind-closed-doors’ practices into the open and given dying people meaningful, transparent choices. Crucially none of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised. The status quo was broken and assisted dying works.”

Evidence from around the world shows that the option of having an assisted death actually lifts the fear that terminally ill people have, and that many never actually use it but are able to make the best of the time they have left due to the comfort and reassurance that it provides.

People talk about a slippery slope, but the Health and Social Care Committee found that not one jurisdiction that has passed laws on the basis of terminal illness has expanded its scope. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. As the courts here and in Europe have repeatedly made clear, Parliament is sovereign. This Bill could not be made any broader through any judicial process.

Speaking of process, with reference to the Bill, having listened to what I know are genuine concerns of Members about ensuring that we get this legislation right, I commit to the House that if the Bill passes Second Reading today, which I sincerely hope it does, I am minded to move a motion that gives the Bill Committee the power to take oral and written evidence in order to ensure that a thorough approach continues to be taken. That is not normal procedure for a private Member’s Bill, but I think that that is the right thing to do. I also reassure colleagues that the Bill Committee will meet over a number of weeks, meaning that there is ample time for full consideration of the details of the Bill, including amendments. The Committee will be representative of the views and make-up of the House. Let me be clear: that will mean there will be representatives of different parties with a range of views on the Committee.

As the Leader of the House said at the Dispatch Box just yesterday, and has said several times, the Government will, of course, work with me to ensure that the Bill is workable and operable. That will quite rightly take time, and I have included in the Bill a commencement period of up to two years—this is not going to happen overnight. That timeframe can be explored in Committee, as it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly.

In conclusion, for the reasons I have set out, I am very clear that the law needs to change to give terminally ill people choice at the end of life and to protect their loved ones from fear of prosecution. There will be some of us here today who are lucky enough not to have personal experience of this issue, but sadly we know that any one of us could end up in this heartbreaking situation. We are all living longer, which is brilliant, and I have campaigned inside and outside Parliament for a greater focus on prevention and early intervention of illness and disease to keep us fit and healthy for as long as possible, but any one of us or our loved ones could be unfortunate or unlucky enough to receive a terminal diagnosis. I struggle to see how it is fair or just to deny anyone the autonomy, dignity and personal choice of taking control of their final weeks. And the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose. Giving the choice of an assisted death to those who want it would of course not stop anyone who is terminally ill from choosing not to make that choice.

Whatever happens today, I am incredibly proud of the work that my fantastic team and the many campaigners have done on this hugely significant, emotional and sensitive subject. We need to be clear: a vote to take this Bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate. It is a vote to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Then, of course, the Bill will go to the Lords for what I have no doubt will be further robust debate and scrutiny. This will be a thorough process, focused on one of the most significant issues of our time—an issue that people across the country clearly want us to address, none more so than the many families who are facing the brutal and cruel reality of the status quo. Today is the beginning, not the end, of that process, but the debate can continue only if colleagues join me in the Aye lobby today. I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on correcting the record. I said in my speech that I have consulted with the highest levels of the judiciary and the medical profession. I have received correspondence from the Judicial Office and wish to clarify my earlier comments. Although I have spoken to lawyers and judges, I should not have implied that the serving judiciary have in some way indicated their agreement with the Bill; they have not. The serving judiciary have been very clear that they have made no public comments about the Bill one way or the other. I apologise if I implied anything to the contrary.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for correcting the record.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. In the Committee that I was in this morning, someone asked if they could remove their jacket, which seemed unbelievably spartan, but if any Member wishes to do so, they may. We are now sitting in public, so the proceedings at the present are being broadcast. Before we start, I have a couple of preliminary remarks. Please will you all turn off your mobile phones and other noisy electronic devices. I am also asked to remind you that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings; if you want them, you will have to go outside.

We shall first consider the motion on the amendment paper tabled by the Member in charge of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, which is to sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee do sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to be here for the first formal meeting of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee. Ahead of the oral evidence sessions next week and the line-by-line scrutiny thereafter, we have two jobs to do this afternoon. One is to confirm the sitting times for the Committee and the other is to confirm the witnesses for oral evidence. Following discussions, I have taken the decision to have some of our sitting today in private. That is normal procedure for discussing witnesses and I think it is the right way to proceed, given that some of those discussions will probably involve conversations about the suitability of witnesses who are not here to speak for themselves. It would be inappropriate to discuss named individuals in such a way. Transparency is of course very important, but so is respecting individuals’ privacy. I hope that is clear to colleagues and to others.

I appreciate that members of the Committee and those viewing our proceedings may wish to know about the purpose and effect of this motion. Most Public Bill Committees are subject to programming, and the Programming Sub-Committee would discuss in private which witnesses to hear from. Similarly, Select Committees discuss in private which witnesses they will hear evidence from. Out of respect for the named individuals that we may call to hear evidence from, I propose that we discuss them informally in private. Once that informal discussion has concluded, the Committee will move back into a public session to formally consider the sittings motion. Any Member who wished to speak about the motion publicly or move an amendment would then be able to do so.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I look forward very much to the process of this Committee and to working with hon. Members to do what we can to ensure that a good Bill is presented back to the House.

I very much respect the points made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I do have some real objections to the motion, which I encourage Members to oppose. The fact is that this debate was due to be held in public—in fact, people have travelled here in the expectation that they would be able to attend and observe our debate on the sittings motion—but last night, for reasons we do not fully understand, a decision was clearly made to table a motion that we sit in private. I would be grateful to understand why that decision was made so late.

My general point is that there is a clear public interest case. The public should understand why witnesses have been chosen and why other people have not, and if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly. This is the only time that the public are being consulted—that experts from outside Parliament have a chance to contribute to our deliberations. I fail to understand why those discussions cannot be held in public. The only argument that I can imagine—and the hon. Member for Spen Valley made it—is that Members might for some reason be uncivil or speak disrespectfully about potential witnesses, which I do not for a moment believe. I am sure that you, Sir Roger, or the other Chairs will keep us in order throughout our proceedings.

We are here to talk about the overall balance and particular qualifications of the witness list. Looking at the witness list that was presented this morning by the hon. Lady, I have very serious concerns, which should be aired publicly, about the list. It includes eight witnesses from foreign jurisdictions, who are being called to give evidence from abroad; all are supporters of assisted dying in their jurisdictions. There are no people speaking against the operations of assisted dying laws internationally. There are nine lawyers on the list—all of them, with the exception of three who appear to be neutral, in favour of a change in the law. There is not a single lawyer against this Bill. Sir James Munby was suggested, but I understand he has been removed. There might be a perfectly good reason for that, but he has spoken against the Bill.

There is nobody on the list from deaf or disabled people’s organisations, but the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities recognises the importance of engaging with such organisations in laws of this nature. With the exception of Dr Jamilla Hussain, there is no one on the witness list who can speak to the equality impacts of assisted dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the sittings motion, which I hope we can do publicly. On a general point about process, the Bill was written by a campaign group.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is not true.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, it had a significant input.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. That is categorically not true. The Bill was written with senior legislative expertise, along with myself as a sitting Member of Parliament and with esteemed colleagues. I take that point of offence quite personally.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, I hope that the hon. Member—

[Danny Kruger]

I apologise, Sir Roger, and I apologise to the hon. Lady for causing offence. I hope she will not be offended when points are made that she disagrees with.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a matter of fact.

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to withdraw the suggestion that the Bill was written by a campaign group, on the basis of the hon. Lady’s assurance that it was written by herself. I hope it is not the case that there was significant input from campaigners. I do not see why there should not have been; I just mention it because the Bill came to us with no formal consultation. There was no impact assessment—

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Surely we are having a conversation about whether we sit in private or not. Can we keep to that matter?

[The Chair]

Forgive me: I am in the Chair and I will decide—but the hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Once again, I am afraid that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is straying very wide of the motion on the amendment paper. I would be grateful if he would now come to his conclusion so we can start to move forward.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely will. In fact, I will finish there. The points I have been trying to make are simply in the light of the fact that if the hon. Lady’s motion is accepted, the public will no longer have the opportunity to hear any of our points on the sittings motion—on the process that we will be decide on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. That, again, is factually incorrect. We have already said that there will be a private sitting for conversations about individual witnesses, including some that the hon. Gentleman has already started talking about, and then we will open again to the public so that everybody can hear the Committee’s conversations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January) meet—

(a) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 29 January;

(c) at 11.30 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 30 January.

(2) during further proceedings on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm.

(3) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (b), after “General Medical Council”, insert “, Royal College of Psychiatrists”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

By adding Karon Monaghan KC, an eminent equality and human rights law barrister, amendment (e) would add balance among the lawyers in the Committee. I would also like to add James Munby, or someone from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we need someone who can speak to court capacity issues in relation to the Bill. Professor Katherine Sleeman is a great expert on all these matters.

I am going through the list, and I am unclear what the Australian MP would add. If we remove the other two, there are other pro-AD Australian experts who will speak instead. If we replace those three, who are experts from—

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend has just mentioned two names that are not in her amendment, and I find that slightly confusing.

[Naz Shah]

These are replacements of the words in your paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

All the names that the hon. Member for Bradford West has suggested were indeed submitted, I believe, to the hon. Member for Spen Valley ahead of the deadline that she put to us at the end of last month.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. All those names were not submitted.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady can feel free to intervene on me without troubling the Chair. I stand corrected if that is the case. We only received the final list this morning. It was necessary to make alternative suggestions ahead of that, which was done. I am now supporting the hon. Member for Bradford West in making suggestions for slight adjustments, as she suggests is all that is appropriate at this point. The list is unbalanced. I had to do a very quick analysis, and of the almost 60 names that have been put to us, 38 of them are in favour of the Bill and the principle of assisted dying, whereas there are only 20 who are opposed. There is an inherent imbalance there. It is only a quick analysis that has been done, and we will be able to do more of that subsequent to this sitting, but that is my impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I now call the promoter of the Bill. I will then call the mover of the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank colleagues for their time this afternoon. It has been an extremely productive session. I am very proud of the tone of the debate: I think we have done a very good job, as we did on Second Reading, of showing this place in a good light.

I reiterate that there are a range of views in this Bill Committee, in the same way that there are a range of views across the House on this significant and deeply emotive issue. There are a range of views among the witnesses we will hear from, and I spent a huge amount of time ensuring that. Colleagues have given me more than 100 names of people they might like to hear from. I had my own list of people I would like to hear from, and many of them are not on the list of those who will give oral evidence.

I have tried to be extremely balanced, so we will hear from people with a range of views and opinions, but most importantly we will hear from people with expertise. That is the purpose of the Committee: to hear from people who can advise us on the detail of the Bill. We will go through this Bill line by line, and we need to hear from people who can help us to do that. We have some fantastic expertise on the Committee, but for many of us there are areas that we need to learn more about. It is important that the witnesses give us the information to enable us to do that, rather than—as numerous colleagues have said—once again going over the fundamental principles around assisted dying, because we did an excellent job of that on Second Reading.

At the end of our endeavours, we will produce a piece of legislation that will be re-presented to the House, and colleagues will again have the opportunity to vote on it however they see fit. There may be people in this room who vote differently from how they voted on Second Reading; there may be colleagues out there who do likewise, one way or the other.

I am very clear about this Committee’s role, which is to work on the Bill together, collegiately and collaboratively, irrespective of our different views, and re-present it to the House so that the House can continue to do its job. It is not just the Commons; the Lords will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and table amendments. I have always been open about the fact that this is about us working together. Where the Bill needs to be amended to make it more robust and alleviate people’s concerns, whether that is around coercion or capacity, that is now the Committee’s job. I stand ready to serve and to do that.

We have spent a lot of time this afternoon on this, and quite rightly so. As far as I am concerned, we are now in a position to move forward. I am very happy that we will hear from so many witnesses over several days, and I am happy that I have added more time to that so that we can hear from more witnesses, which I think is important. As colleagues have said, our job now is to get on with this really important piece of work.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter of this Bill, because she has been very helpful. She has certainly added one of my key witnesses to her list, and I am grateful for that.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. One of the biggest issues for me is amendment (b), which would insert “Royal College of Psychiatrists”. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the point that all psychiatrists come under the GMC, but not every member of the GMC is a psychiatrist. That speaks to the issue of coercion, mental health and capacity. That is the expertise that I am looking for in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, and I would really like to hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

I am happy to be guided by you, Sir Roger, because I am new to this process and I have not done a Bill of this nature before, but my only worry with the outside evidence and briefings is that they will not be on the record when we are looking at Hansard and seeing whether they have been taken into account. I would be happy to receive some assurance about that. Yes, we can organise lots of briefings and lots of experts, but does that not defeat the object of having this debate so robustly in the first instance?

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the issue of language, and the point about added value. I think that language is correct, because I do want to add value to this debate. I want value added, because it is important for my constituents that when I vote on the Bill on Report, I do so knowing that I have listened to all sides of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether this is a for-and-against argument. In particular, he said that we do not need to hear from those who are opposed, because we want to strengthen the Bill so that it can go through the House. Although I appreciate the sentiment, I put it to everyone that it is not about getting the Bill through; it is about getting the right information so we can scrutinise whether it is fit to go through the House. For that reason, it is important to hear from those who are opposed. It is naive to think that we only need to hear from people who are in support.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

On 29 November last year, in a debate widely described as showing Parliament at its best, this House sent the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into Committee for scrutiny by a majority of 55. It was the clear will of this place that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, in the knowledge that Members will have further opportunities on Report and beyond to decide whether it should be enacted. For that process to continue, the resolution before us today must pass.

Those who oppose the Bill on principle—something they are absolutely entitled to do—are seeking to suggest that there is something extraordinary or improper about this process, and on that they are simply wrong. This is a standard procedure that comes before this House all the time. Without it, there can be no Bill—that, I humbly suggest, is sadly what some people intend. This is not a blank cheque, as some Members have suggested. The right time to discuss the detail of what expenditure may be required is when we know the final shape of the Bill. At that point, if Members are concerned about the expenditure required, or indeed anything else, they can of course vote as they wish.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that the right time to discuss the capacity of the judiciary and health service to deliver the Bill is presumably once it has completed its Committee stage, but should the Committee that considers the Bill have the impact assessment that allows it to scrutinise it line by line, mindful of the implications that it might have on our health service and our judiciary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I would say that point is slightly out of the scope of the money resolution. However, I think it is a fair point, and I acknowledge that a lot of work is being done, as the Government said it would be, to look at the workability and operability of the Bill. I am working closely with Departments on those issues, and those conversations will continue, alongside the work of the Committee. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.

The other point is that I have never sought to stifle debate on the Bill or this really important issue; quite the contrary. I value it and I welcome it, but I do ask that it continues to be conducted in the same respectful and considered manner as on Second Reading. Where we disagree, let us do so with respect and without questioning each other’s motives or integrity.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she has conducted this important debate. On stifling debate, does she share my hope that there will be no vote against the money resolution, because such a vote would end debate? While there was a strong vote in support of the Bill, there were many strong arguments for amendment and there was opposition. Does she agree that that debate needs to happen as the Bill proceeds and not be stifled and ended today?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Having done such a powerful job of debating this issue on Second Reading, it is crucial that we continue that debate in the right manner, as Parliament voted to do. It would be wrong for anything that happens today to put a stop to that debate and those discussions.

Let us not forget that the public are watching our deliberations carefully and that the issue we are discussing means a huge amount to many people. It is extremely serious and, for many, hugely emotive. We owe it to our constituents to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. I ask Members to consider carefully what it would say about us as a Parliament if such an important debate were to be curtailed as a result of procedural manoeuvring, which, sadly, is what I worry is being attempted by some colleagues today.

The money resolution is not about the pros and cons or the detail of the Bill; it will simply allow for proper scrutiny—including of any cost involved—to continue, and mean that the Bill Committee can begin its important work. I urge Members to support the resolution.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew]

There would be added expense. Social workers are trained in understanding family dynamics, and need desperately to be involved in these situations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I take that point on board. I had a very productive meeting with the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers yesterday, and we had a useful conversation on that issue.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the hon. Lady.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

Q Can you talk a little bit more about whether you perceive any difficulties in having a definition of terminal illness in the Act? How do you think the medical profession will interpret that?

Professor Whitty: At the extremes —most people are at the extremes—it is very clear what is going to happen. For most people, you can say with confidence, barring some extraordinary accident like being hit by a car on the way out, “You’ll be fine in a year, even though you have heart disease, cancer or whatever.” At the other extreme, there are people who are clearly dying and will die in the next two or three days, and virtually nothing will change that reality.

What we are talking about in the Bill, of course, is a point between those stages, but people will definitely reach a point where there will be an inexorable and, importantly for the Bill, unreversible slide towards a point of death. People can make a reasonable central view, if they are experienced in a particular disease, about when the death is likely to happen, accepting that there is a spread around that. I am sure that the general public and Members of Parliament fully accept that this is not a precise science. This is a central view, and there is a big academic literature around this. Some people will die significantly earlier than they are predicted to; a small number will die very significantly later; and some people will certainly die a bit later or to some degree later. The central view is usually reasonably accurate—that someone is now on a pathway from which there is not going to be a return.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning, gentlemen. I would like to pick up on coercion and capacity, because they are two really important points in the Bill. I would like to know a little more about the work that doctors and nurses do to check for coercion and assess capacity when patients are making really important decisions and choices at the end of life, but maybe in other contexts as well. The Bill refers to the Mental Capacity Act. That Act is a big piece of legislation, but I am conscious that there is only a short reference to it in the Bill. Is there anything we could add to the Bill that would improve the robustness of the reference to mental capacity? What does it look like now, and is there anything we could add?

Professor Whitty: Duncan, why don’t you take the first bit and I will take the second?

Duncan Burton: In terms of looking for signs of coercion, all of our nursing and clinical staff have safeguarding training, which already looks at things like whether people are under financial coercion or other forms of abuse. That training is already in place and it is extensive across the NHS and social care. If the Bill is passed, we will need to look at how we strengthen that training in relation to spotting the potential signs of coercion in this space as well. Given that that mechanism is already in place, I think that would be an extension, so it is important that we factor that in. I am also mindful, given the scale of colleagues we have working across health and care, that the time between the Bill being passed and its implementation is sufficient that we enable everybody to receive that additional training, if it is required.

Professor Whitty: In terms of strengthening the Bill, as a practitioner, I was relieved that the decision was for the Bill—if it stays this way—to stick with the Mental Capacity Act, and that was for two reasons. First, that Act is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although, as you say, it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, “Does this person have capacity?”, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.

It additionally has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation. Within the legislation, it is very important that there are some situations where you will need to call for additional assistance. For example, if someone has a co-existing mental health condition, you will probably want to ask a psychiatrist additionally whether that condition is interfering with the decision taken to the point that someone loses capacity for this very important decision. The level of capacity has to be reasonably high.

My own view is that starting this way is the sensible thing to do. That does not mean there could not be arguments for some additional points, but I cannot immediately—again, as a jobbing doctor—see ones where I think, “This is going to make a big difference.” The fact is that this is founded on a very established bit of well-used and well-recognised legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q To that point, in those conversations where patients are making very serious decisions, it is not uncommon that you would seek additional advice from other professions, such as a psychiatrist or possibly a social worker and other professionals, if you felt there was a need to do so.

Professor Whitty: The further you go up in the seriousness of the decision, the more you would do that. For example, if you were setting a finger that had been broken, you are not going to wait until a psychiatrist has said that you can do that. Within reason, provided that someone gives consent, you will do that. You will be much more cautious about moving forward with things like open heart surgery or deprivation of liberty if you think there is uncertainty. It should be clear. For the majority of people, it is very clear they have capacity or very clear they do not. There is a relatively small—but important—number in the middle where that is less clear and where additional views are relevant, particularly where there is a question of co-existing mental health issues. The fact of the mental health condition does not in itself mean that someone does not have capacity, but what has to be taken into account is, “Do they have the capacity for this decision at this point in time?” That is how the Mental Capacity Act works.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Q The Bill sets out that it should be brought into force within two years. If the intention is to provide assisted dying through the NHS, can the NHS be ready in time to deliver the service equitably and safely? What needs to be deprioritised in order for it do to so?

Professor Whitty: As we have seen in covid, the NHS, like any service, can swing very fast if there is a need for speed. In this case, I think most people in society would say that the key thing is to get this right. Personally, I would rather it was not running against a timeline. You would not want it to drag on forever, because then you have uncertainty for everybody, but I think Duncan and I would both say that two years seems a reasonable starting point. With some things, it might take longer than that to work out how we are going to provide this in the most safe and equitable way—for example, in dealing with minority and other groups. We need to get all that right and, at least at first pass, get it as close to good as we possibly can.

Equally, we may find when we first start using the legislation that there are some things that we had not considered at the beginning, and therefore we need to go back and improve on them because we just had not thought about them in the first way through the gates; that is why I hope that some of the more operational issues are done through secondary legislation and regulation. Inevitably, that is true for many bits of legislation, but it is particularly important here.

I go back to my very first comment: the central person here is an average citizen in their last six months of life. What we do not want is a system very difficult for them to navigate so that they spend their entire last six months of life—if the Bill is passed and they choose to take account of it; they are going to be a minority—stuck in a bureaucratic thicket. We need to keep this simple. My view is that the best safeguards are simple safeguards. Overcomplicating usually makes the safeguard less certain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Q Leading on from Dr Opher’s question about the “must refer” clause, you and Professor Whitty both stress the importance of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, yet there may be doctors who feel very strongly against mentioning assisted dying. Given the existence of clause 4(5) and the “must refer”, do you think there is a danger that there might be doctors who would be reluctant to provide a prognosis of six months or less if they thought that that would make the patient eligible for assisted dying, and that simply was not something they could support?

Dr Green: That is why it is important that doctors should be able to opt out at any stage of this. There are doctors who would find it difficult to do that, and it is important that their position is respected.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about referral, what happens in the case of abortion? That is one of the closest parallels we can get. If we have a doctor who is not comfortable having that conversation, presumably they cannot just leave that person with nowhere to go.

Dr Green: What would happen is that the doctor would provide the patient—through their receptionist, through leaflets or through a telephone number—with somewhere they could get the information. You cannot just abandon a patient. They have to be sure that the patient has the ability to do what the patient wants to do.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Exactly, so although the terminology of “refer” might not be quite right, are we saying that we have got to provide that patient with a course of action?

Dr Green: Yes. It is the “referral” word that is problematic for us.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is very helpful. Let me turn to when the GMC guidance on arrangements about assistance to die is raised with practitioners. Part of the guidance is that practitioners have to

“respect competent patients’ right to make decisions about their care, including their right to refuse treatment, even if this will lead to their death”.

I am interested in how that fits in with those very difficult conversations. When a patient executes that right to refuse treatment, are those cases logged? Are they monitored or reported on?

Mark Swindells: There was an important piece of case law—I think in the 1990s—that clarified that a patient refusing treatment and subsequently dying is not an act of suicide. You are right that our guidance talks about the importance of a doctor explaining to the patient about the likely course of action in terms of the option for no treatment. Again, that is intertwined with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and puts a lot of autonomy in the space of the patient, along with the consent case law that we covered before.

On the previous point about referrals, our guidance is similar to what Dr Green was saying: in the case of conscientious objection—for example, on abortion—the important point is that, from the patient perspective, they are not left with nowhere to go. If that assists, that may be a principle that helps and reads across.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about reporting, where patients take that right to refuse treatment, capacity must be assessed at that point if a patient has said, “Look, I don’t want any more treatment.” That is quite an important point to assess capacity. Are those cases logged and recorded?

Mark Swindells: Yes. It would be important for the patient’s records to cover the points of consent and that the doctor has recorded that they have interacted with the patient that way. I do not believe it is centrally held or collated in any sense like that, but I may be wrong.

[Jake Richards]

Q Dr Green, on subsections (4) and (5) of clause 4 and the information services, as opposed to the referral to a practitioner, I think your point has some weight. In terms of the rest of clause 4 as drafted, it has an opt-in, it gives wide discretion to practitioners and there is no obligation to raise it, so from my understanding of your written evidence, it ticks all the boxes. Is that fair?

Dr Green: Yes, with the exception of the referral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

Q My question, which relates to some of the points made earlier, is for Glyn Berry. Your organisation has recommended a new role: the approved palliative care professional. To go into the detail a bit more, you make a number of recommendations on what that role would include, such as ensuring that the person has the mental capacity to make the decision. First, are you therefore saying that this new role should sit alongside the two-doctor process, which has already been outlined in terms of final decision making? If the approved palliative care professional felt, for example, that this person did not have mental capacity, should they be able to, as it were, stop the process?

Secondly, what level of training would that person need in terms of time? We have, for example, been talking about a two-year process. If this new role came into effect, how long would that person need to be trained for to fulfil it adequately? Thirdly, do you have a sense of how many of these professionals we would need to make this a functioning system? Those are three separate questions.

Glyn Berry: To answer the first question, we feel, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that the role of an approved palliative care professional would sit beside the role of clinicians, balancing clinical and social observation and assessment.

In terms of the training, we, as social workers, already have continuous training opportunities to become best interests assessors, practice educators and approved mental health practitioners, so we envisage that the training would very much be along those lines. Doing those roles currently requires a course of training at university.

Our thoughts, at the moment, are that that would be for palliative care social workers, whether they are in charities, trusts or local authorities, or are independent, because that is where things sit with us at the moment and we know our roles. We like to think that it would roll out to other professionals, however, because assessing capacity is not specifically the role of the social worker; other professionals are able to, and do, complete capacity assessments.

It is quite difficult to answer your question in terms of numbers at the moment. If we were talking specifically about palliative care social workers, we currently have around 200 members in our association, but there will be other people out there who are not members and we do not know who they are. It is a role that could expand.

One of our other recommendations is that palliative and end-of-life care, as an aside to your question, is also brought into qualifying roles for people in training, such as doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, as well as social workers. We could see that happening in the future.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming and giving evidence today, and for meeting with me recently. You both represent organisations that have neutral positions on assisted dying. I am really interested in this multidisciplinary approach that you are talking about, and I think it is a really valuable conversation, so thank you for raising those points.

I want to ask a bit more about what this end-of-life conversation looks like in your experience, because you are absolutely right; of all the people who are spending time with patients in their last few months of life, it is often nurses and palliative care social workers. You have a really important role to play.

I am also interested in what this would look like in reality. There has been talk of a kind of separation of palliative care and assisted dying, but, actually, I think we should be looking to embrace a holistic approach to end-of-life conversations and end-of-life care, which is what has happened in other jurisdictions. You might have a patient who has signed up for assisted dying but never does it because they have good palliative care and they work with their palliative care experts and specialists. Therefore, I think it is important that we do not try to separate these things.

I would like your views on that, but I think that one of the strengths is that having these conversations about death, about dying and about end of life is a really positive thing. Your members have an important role to play in that, so could you talk a little bit about the holistic approach that your members take?

Professor Ranger: You are right regarding the conversations and the care around dying. Having those conversations with people around pain management and symptom management is particularly the role of palliative care nurses. With assisted dying, I think the conversation is sometimes slightly different. It is talking more as a nurse in some ways, because the primary reason that assisted dying is often a discussion is a lack of autonomy, not pain. Therefore, the conversation generally tends to go in a slightly different way.

Symptom control, and being scared of pain, is understandable, and we absolutely have the ability to get that right for people, but when it comes to seeking assisted dying, the primary reason is usually autonomy, rather than pain and fear of dying. Therefore, in a practical way, I think an experienced nurse or doctor will start to gauge the difference in those conversations, because they are different. I think it is about being really clear around those conversations and really listening to what people have to say, and then having a way to be able to ensure that what an individual wants is something that you have got, and that you listen to.

I absolutely agree with Glyn about safeguards and all the things that we absolutely need to make sure are there, but the whole point of assisted dying is not to be paternalistic, but to respect autonomy. Whatever safeguards we put in with that, we have to be really careful not to ignore that right of autonomy, which is primarily what this Bill is trying to preserve.

I think it is about being really vigilant and listening. A primary role of a nurse is not to advocate their personal view, but to really listen to somebody else and to ensure that what they want is pursued. In all that discussion, it is really important that that does not get lost.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is incredibly helpful, thank you. You are absolutely right to bring it back to patient autonomy—patient choice—so that, while putting all the safeguards in place, we are very clear that it is their genuine choice based on what they really want to do. It sounds as though you are saying—

[The Chair]

Order. Is there a question there?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Yes. It sounds as though you are saying that your professionals are trained to have those conversations, which is very reassuring. Glyn, do you want to add anything?

Glyn Berry: Just to say that I absolutely agree with Professor Ranger. My experience of working with palliative nurses, and nurses in general, is long, and I have historically had exceptionally positive experiences and continue to do so. I think that we learn from each other, and it is really important that we can have those conversations with the person and ask questions that they might never have been asked before, such as, “What is it that you want?”

Professor Ranger is absolutely right in terms of autonomy and the person having control, because once that diagnosis is given, it can be a downward spiral for a person and they feel that they lose control. Patients and families talk about that—about having no control over what is happening. In effect, that is true in terms of what is happening in the disease or illness trajectory, but it is so important to remind a person that they are still the person that they were before that diagnosis, that they will continue to be that person, and that they still have a voice. In both our roles professionally, and alongside other clinicians, that is what we seek to do all the time. That is why a multidisciplinary team approach is so important.

Ultimately, we could find that, once you have asked all the appropriate questions and you have put potential safeguards in place following conversations, a person may not choose that particular point to end their life—as you mentioned, Kim—and may continue to live to the end of their natural life.

[Sojan Joseph]

Q When the RCN Scotland director gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament during the discussion of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, he expressed the RCN’s concern that there were not sufficient safeguards in place to protect nurses and nursing practice around assisted dying in Scotland. Are you satisfied that the Bill we have before us in England and Wales addresses those concerns, or would you like to see amendments to ensure that the mental health and wellbeing of nurses involved in the process are protected, should the Bill become law?

Professor Ranger: Yes, we would want to see more support and protection for nurses. Of course, in the exploring of assisted dying legislation in Scotland, the second clinical decision maker is a nurse—so it a doctor and a nurse, whereas in England and Wales we are looking at two medically qualified practitioners. We absolutely want to make sure that the skills and support is there for nursing staff, and the ability—as I heard our medical colleagues saying—to not be involved in assisted dying absolutely has to be supported. It cannot be an expectation of the role; it has to be something you choose to proactively take part in as a conscious decision. It cannot ever be just an expectation of a nurse. We are absolutely adamant about that. The Bill cannot just support the needs of medical staff—nursing absolutely has to be included within that, both in skills and support.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Gordon]

Q Since the assisted dying Bill had its Second Reading, we have seen announcements from the Government about investment into palliative care. Obviously that is mostly capital and we need to see more long-term funding. Do you feel we are already seeing increases as a result of this conversation? Is there any reason why that should not continue?

Dr Cox: I would love to see it continue. I am part of the commission on palliative and end of life care. There is no guarantee that the recommendations of that commission will be funded, and that is what concerns me. I would love to see that happen. Would it not be great if the two could happen simultaneously? But there is no guarantee that that will happen.

James Sanderson: I want to come in on your point and agree with Sarah’s points. Obviously, we welcomed the Government’s announcement of the additional funding for the hospice sector, but the Committee will be aware that the hospice sector currently receives only about 30% of its funding from statutory sources. We are therefore reliant on the good will of the population to raise money and support us in various ways, and through retail and other ventures that we have.

On the point about universality of service, we have in the Health and Care Act 2022 a requirement for integrated care boards to commission palliative care services that meet the needs of their population, but although there is guidance as to what that should look like, there is not universal take-up of that guidance and delivery of all of the stated services. Although that is outside the scope of this Bill, it comes back to the context of how much the overall position can be strengthened across the country. The context for anybody looking to make a decision is within the same space. As Dr Clarke said in respect of informed choice, if the context is the same for everybody, we can have more confidence that that informed choice is made at the right level.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Goodness me, there is a lot to cover.

To go back to your point, Mr Sanderson, it is important to acknowledge the fantastic work that palliative care professionals do. Indeed, it is extremely important that we are having these conversations, which is why we gave extra time to this panel of witnesses.

Dr Cox, on your point about the pressure on the individual doctors involved in the process, the Bill is very clear that if they do not have the relevant specialism, they must refer to a specialist in that condition, and they “can” refer to a psychiatrist. There is probably consensus that we maybe need to strengthen the Bill in that regard. When there are doubts around capacity, doctors probably “must” refer to a psychiatrist. That is something I am taking away from these sessions.

I was interested in the comments about the multidisciplinary approach. We heard about that this morning from colleagues in social work and in nursing. I would love to know your thoughts, Dr Ahmedzai, about the idea of a multidisciplinary approach. I think there is a lot of value in that.

Dr Clarke, on this concept around training, it worries me that we have seen this afternoon a very different picture painted by you and others compared with what we heard this morning, when we had doctors and nurses telling us that they regularly assess for capacity and coercion. They said it is part of their day-to-day work and they were very confident in their ability to do that. Training is fundamental, and this is an opportunity to look at gold-standard training. I would be interested to know your thoughts on that.

Dr Ahmedzai: You asked me about the multidisciplinary nature of this. I am really glad you raised that, because we seem to be focusing on palliative care as being very professional, and I would remind people that there are levels of palliative care. A lot of palliative care is given not by specialists like the three of us here but by generalists—either GPs, as we have heard, or by oncologists or geriatricians. When we talk about increasing palliative care and improving palliative care, it is not just about more doctors like us working at a specialist level.

The other thing is that it is not just doctors. We have to acknowledge that nurses are on the frontline; they do so much more than doctors. When doctors clock off at 5 o’clock in those sad institutions that still do not provide 24/7 cover, there are nurses at the bedside all around the clock. Then, there are social workers, physiotherapists and others. If we are talking about meeting the needs of people who may not necessarily have pain but have other forms of suffering or worries, which are not even physical—the loss of dignity and the loss of independence—nurses are so good at supporting people in that. A doctor will just get in the way.

What we need to do is make sure that we are addressing the reasons why many people choose this. I know, from speaking to people abroad, that it is loss of dignity and loss of independence. Is that not a legitimate reason for wishing that you were not a burden on somebody, or on the state even? It is really important that we consider that.

The other thing to bring in as well, if we are thinking about the big picture, is another elephant in the room: palliative care is not strictly speaking actually in the NHS—not all of it. A lot of it is outside of the NHS, for historical reasons from 50 or 60 years ago when decisions were made. Although there are excellent charities providing discrete areas of it, we rely so much on non-NHS services. You would never think of going to a charity to get your heart transplant or your kidney dialysis. We need to confront the fact that palliative care is fractured because of that history and the genesis of how palliative care came to be. It is not just NHS. We must think about the multidisciplinarity.

Dr Clarke: Regarding training and how much it is required, I would not be the first person to make the observation that sometimes doctors can be very pleased with their own abilities at a particular practice, and that practice might be having a conversation where you are assessing someone’s capacity.

What is interesting as a palliative care specialist is that I and my team will be asked to get involved with patients in every possible bit of the hospital—surgical wards, medical wards, intensive care, emergency departments—so you actually see a huge number of patients being treated by many different teams and many different doctors, junior and senior, all of whom are having these difficult, nuanced conversations around the end of life with varying degrees of skill. Of course some doctors and nurses are superbly skilled at having them, and I would say that there are many who are not.

The reason training is so important is that it is a little bit like Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns. You might not even be aware of the fact that you have caused a patient or their family distress. In a conversation where fear is a dominant part—the patient is fearful of suffering misery and loss of dignity at the end of life, but they may not voice that—you as the doctor can be completely oblivious of the fact that you have sort of stamped over those unvoiced fears with your hobnail boots. You are not aware of it.

This idea that a vulnerable patient needs to be absolutely at the centre of any conversation you are having is quite radical in some parts of the NHS. It needs to be taught much more assertively from day one of medical school, so that vulnerable patients are always at the centre of the room. That is why I think the single most important thing for the Bill and its safety comes down to training and actually recognising that these conversations are difficult and nuanced. If we assume that, we are going to make sure that the Bill is as safe as it can be.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Can I ask a quick follow-up, Chair?

[The Chair]

We will come back to that once I get other Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

One last question, very quickly.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I have a very quick one. You talked about inequality in healthcare and in systems. What I would like to come back to is the status quo. What are your comments on the inequality that exists currently, where assisted dying is available to people who have got the money to go to Switzerland, or another jurisdiction, and have an assisted death? I ask Dr Ahmedzai, first of all.

Dr Ahmedzai: Clearly, British people have had that option for many years, since Switzerland first offered that. It is clear that two things happen. One is that it selects people who are better off and more functionally capable—they can do it—so it discriminates against disabled people. Also, people tend to do it long before they need to, when they are still fit. That is because mostly, they want to go on their own, without dragging relatives along. It is doubly damaging to families who are going through an illness with somebody who is dying. They have to say goodbye to them long before they need to. However, that is because we do not offer that option here.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does anybody else want to comment? Dr Cox?

Dr Cox: I am happy to. Of course we do not want people to have to make that choice. I will refer to everything I have said before: are they are making a real choice, and have they had access to really excellent palliative care?

I also make a brief point about the impact of the discussion around what dying looks like that the Bill has raised, and the fact that the stories that have been told have suggested to many members of the public that death is inevitably ugly, horrific and dramatic. Actually, that has made many people fearful, and they have been emailing me and saying, “I am now afraid of dying, and I wasn’t before.” They may then choose assisted dying before they need to because they have had a fear instilled in them that death is inevitably horrible and dramatic.

[Kim Leadbeater]

But those deaths do exist.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Max Hill KC, Alex Ruck Keene KC and Sir Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Ryan Spielvogel, who is senior medical director for aid in dying services at Sutter Health, California, and Dr Jessica Kaan, who is medical director for End of Life Washington. Both witnesses will appear via Zoom. I call on Members to ask questions, but in view of the last point of order, I must be absolutely clear that I will interrupt if questions to the witnesses are too long. We do not have much time and people want to get their questions in—there has to be an element of self-discipline in that regard.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I will try to be brief. I thank the witnesses for joining us from wherever they are in the world—it is great to have you with us today. I will get straight to the point. There is understandably a significant amount of nervousness about the potential change that the Bill would create within England and Wales. Could you talk to us a little bit about what the process has been like in your jurisdictions and what it looks like now? What are your experiences, particularly focusing on questions around mental capacity and coercion? Dr Spielvogel can go first.

Dr Spielvogel: Thank you all for having me today. I am Ryan Spielvogel and I am senior medical director for assisted dying services for Sutter Health in California. I have been an assisted dying physician for the past eight and a half years, since the law went into effect here, so I have seen many terminally ill people going through the process.

You asked specifically about coercion and capacity. Determining mental capacity is something that we use physicians to do every day. There are codified steps and processes for us to be able to assess a person’s capacity. Capacity for anything, for any procedure or medical intervention, is presumed—that the patient has capacity—until they are deemed to not have capacity. We do that through asking questions, determining their understanding of their disease process, asking them to repeat what their understanding of their options is, and making a decision and then telling us their judgment as to why they came to that decision.

That is something that we do every day. It is oftentimes informal. For instance, if I am prescribing someone blood pressure medication, I might not go through the entire process of assessing capacity, but in longer or higher-stakes conversations like end-of-life discussions, I usually do ask somebody to repeat back to me what they understand of their disease process, their options, what their decisions are and why they are making those decisions. That is basically exactly what I do in these conversations.

In terms of coercion, I understand the concern. It is a very valid concern that people have. I have seen this in many jurisdictions in the US, where different states are considering legalising assisted dying, but I will tell you that in practice it just does not happen. I have seen assisted dying laws go into practice across numerous states and have helped many, many people through this process, and I have never seen a case where I even suspected coercion. People are just not that good as actors.

So we get the family out of the room. We dig deep into their concerns, their justifications and the reasoning behind their choices. It is often crystal clear, when you are speaking to someone who is suffering from a terminal illness. They are very focused on their symptoms, very focused on their quality of life, very focused on their suffering. I do not ever get the sense from them that their family, their doctors or anybody is coercing them into the decision. In fact, if anything, I have seen it many times the other way around. I tend to see it where the patient is really ready to let go, but the family is really not ready to let go, and the family puts up varying degrees of roadblock to the patient accessing assisted dying. I have seen many cases of people being coerced out of it; I have never seen someone being coerced into it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is incredibly helpful—thank you. Dr Kaan, do you want to add anything to that, and maybe touch on the training that takes place around identifying these things and the conversations that take place?

Dr Kaan: I echo exactly what Dr Spielvogel has said. As part of our medical training, we are trained to assess capacity in both small and big ways, depending on the size of the decision at hand, as he said. Throughout our medical training, we are trained to do that and to assess with a patient progressively over time, as we are seeing them in subsequent visits as well. This is really no different from that, although obviously the stakes are a bit higher than a blood pressure medication discussion.

We look at whether, for instance, the patient is able to voice a reason for making their decision. Do they have a logic behind it? Do they have a set of values that they can express? Is their decision consistent over time? We are looking at a longitudinal assessment, rather than just one fixed moment in time. Over the course of our assessments, it really does become clear in almost all cases that somebody either does or does not have the capacity to make this decision or any decision. This is really not outside the realm of what physicians are trained to do in any other case of medical decisions, especially large ones.

In the case of coercion, I agree that virtually all the time it is the opposite way: family members and loved ones are well-intentionedly trying to coerce or convince someone not to make this choice or not to proceed with this option, which they may have available, rather than pushing them to do it. I think the way to properly assess that is to ask open-ended questions: as Dr Spielvogel has said, to have them in the room alone, at least for a portion of the assessment, so you can have a one-on-one conversation; to ask the questions in various ways, so you are seeing the consistency of answers over time; and to look for non-verbal cues that may indicate that something else is going on. I have also never come across a case where I felt that a patient was being coerced into this decision by a family member, but rather the opposite.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Q My question is about how the legislation is going and how you have implemented it. What changes have you made since it began? What teething problems did you find as you were going along? What adjustments have you made to your process?

Dr Spielvogel: The original version was called the End of Life Option Act. It legalised assisted dying in California when it went into effect in 2016. It was then amended in 2021, I believe; the effect of the main amendment was to shorten the waiting period. There was a 14-day mandatory waiting period between two verbal requests that a patient would give directly to their physician. What we found when we were studying it was that approximately 30% of people died during the waiting period.

There were many conversations with patients. The thought process behind the waiting period is that somebody is making a persistent, well-thought-out and non-capricious decision when they are asking for this, but there is a false premise there—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Let us be clear. Witnesses can submit written evidence until the Committee reports to the House. It is open to Members to individually write to witnesses and invite them to give written evidence, if they so wish. My advice to the hon. Member is that if he wishes to look at this in a more formal way or through a more formal mechanism, he is to speak to the Committee Clerks, because it is beyond my remit.

We now come to motions (a) to (d) amending the sittings resolution tabled by the Member in charge. I have selected the amendment tabled to motion (a) and will group all four motions and the amendment for debate. I will first call Kim Leadbeater to move motion (a), then Naz Shah to move the amendment. The scope of the debate is all four motions and the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment (a), in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the sittings resolution agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after Mencap (Thursday 30 January, until no later than 5.00 pm), leave out “Representative of Senedd Cymru” and insert—

“Professor Emyr Lewis (Emeritus Professor, Department of Law and Criminology, University of Aberystwyth), Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Psychiatrists.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss motions (b) to (d).

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments allow additional witnesses to be called to give oral evidence, including representatives from Disability Rights UK, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and an expert in Welsh devolution and constitutional matters.

As the sessions today have shown, hearing from expert witnesses is an extremely important part of this process, so I hope I have the support of the Committee in making these additions. On the motion to call additional witnesses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, I respect the suggestion but I am confident that we have an eminently qualified witness to cover issues of coercion and domestic abuse in Professor Jane Monckton-Smith, who was suggested by my hon. Friend.

We have also heard today—and will hear from many witnesses over the next few days—from medical doctors, social workers, nurses, palliative care experts and geriatricians. That is around 50 witnesses in total. While I fully appreciate that a wide range of additional charities and organisations has valuable contributions to make, I would encourage them to submit written evidence so that the Committee has the benefit of their thoughts.

Regarding the start of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, given the huge volume of evidence—both oral and written—that we have received and are still receiving, I have consulted with colleagues across the Committee and there is a consensus that having next week to absorb and evaluate the evidence, and to prepare any amendments in light of it, is extremely important. Consequently, we would begin line-by-line scrutiny on Tuesday 11 February, as per the amendment.

I hope that these amendments demonstrate the robust approach that the Committee and I are taking to our work, and I encourage colleagues to support them.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move an amendment to motion (a), at end insert—

“Richard Robinson, CEO of Hourglass, Cherry Henry-Leach of STADA, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse ”.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and I am grateful to her for adding Professor Jane Monckton-Smith to the witness list. I also absolutely agree that the evidence we receive is really valuable.

This is an amendment tabled yesterday by the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) yesterday, to which I have added my name.

The reason for the amendment is that Hourglass focuses on domestic abuse of older people and it has particularly noted that the majority of such victims are female. Hourglass estimates that one in six elderly people are victims of coercion in the UK. This raises serious concerns that such people could be pushed into ending their lives if the Bill is enacted. Hourglass has not published a public opinion on the Bill.

Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse has said that

“We must echo concerns raised by the VAWG sector”—

the violence against women and girls sector—

“and disability activists about the bill’s current safeguards. There is insufficient clarity on what constitutes coercion and limited reflection on carer capacity to support someone terminally ill. Without robust measures, there is a real risk that assisted dying could be exploited as a tool for coercion or even femicide.

Statistics show that over 88% of unlawful ‘mercy killings’ are perpetrated by men towards women, often involving violent means. These troubling realities demand urgent consideration in shaping this legislation.

We also highlight the health sector’s role in identifying domestic abuse. With 80% of victim-survivors having their first or only point of contact in healthcare, it is critical that health professionals are equipped to identify and respond to abuse.

We call on the Government to ensure the proposed bill includes stringent safeguards and that healthcare systems are equipped to recognise and prevent the potential misuse of assisted dying. Femicide is already a crisis in the UK, and no law should inadvertently contribute to its escalation.”

All my adult life, I have had experience of dealing with domestic abuse and coercion, and I draw on that experience to speak to these amendments. Although Professor Jane Monckton-Smith is an expert, she is an academic. These two organisations work with people who have been victims of abuse.

In addition, we had an official meeting with the Clerk to discuss the proposals for Committee sittings. It was said at that meeting that we would only have witnesses who would give evidence, particularly in person, that would contribute to the deliverability and the workability of the Bill. Since then, we have had families added to the list of witnesses. That adds weight to the argument that we should have witnesses who are providing a service to victims directly.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Atkinson]

Yes, I am asking whether that is the case.

Professor House: I think the problem with this Bill is what assessment it expects to be made that does not cover the ground that I have been talking about. It just asks, “Is this person able to make decisions?” Essentially, that is what the assessment boils down to, and it does not cover the psychological and social assessment. What I am suggesting is not a terribly radical thing—it is in the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, in other clinical circumstances where we come across people who say they want to end their life. NICE guidelines say that we should undertake a psychological social assessment.

Richard Robinson: We as an organisation are calling for the need, in a safer ageing society, to foster an environment where the safety and dignity of ageing individuals is guaranteed. We have seen some horrific examples, such as in covid with DNRs, and I think there are some parallels to be drawn there. We want to see as much robust safeguarding and checking in place as possible to ensure that that kind of issue does not come to the fore.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q If I may, I have a question for Professor Esmail, but I will make an observation—I think I have a duty to do this, and to be the voice of some of the people we are talking about this afternoon: the terminally ill people who are dying. We talked a little bit about suicide earlier, but it is clear to me that the terminally ill people I have met would not describe themselves as suicidal at all. They want to live, but the fact is, they are dying—that is a very important distinction to make.

Also, Richard, I would love to know your thoughts. I hear what you are saying about protections for older people, but as you rightly said, it is fair to say that not all older people are vulnerable, and that a lot of older people support a change in the law. Also, not all older people are terminally ill—I think about my grandad, who asked me to take him to Switzerland. I have thought about him a lot in recent months, but he would not have been covered by the Bill because he was not terminally ill; he was just old. Those are just a couple of observations, which you can come back on if you wish.

Professor Esmail, you acknowledged that during your time as a GP, you went on your own journey on assisted dying. I think you described yourself as being implacably opposed, but you also stated that the law at the moment is a mess and does not protect anyone. Can you tell us a little about that journey and how you came to that conclusion?

Professor Esmail: With the Shipman inquiry, I realised that there were real gaps in the process. Dame Janet Smith put in many safeguards about end-of-life care. But it became apparent to me that in terms of choice, we did not have any safeguards.

My own experience was of looking after someone who had a terrible cancer of the mouth and had pleaded with me before. He declined surgery; he said that he knew what he was going to do, that he would say his goodbyes and everything else, and that at some point he wanted to end his own life. He asked if I could help him to do that. Of course I could not, and explained why. I promised him that I would do as much as I could to alleviate his suffering. It is very graphic—it is awful. You basically choke; you cannot swallow; this thing just grows into your mouth and so on. I asked myself, “What am I achieving?” He was going to die—he knew that he was going to die. I asked myself, “Am I achieving anything by just saying, ‘No, you’ve just got to go through this process, because there is something about suffering that everyone has to go through, and it is part of life’?” I just said to myself, “This is wrong.”

When I investigated it more, I realised that you see this: people make the choice about going to Dignitas. As a doctor, they would come to me sometimes and say, “Can you fill in my medical form?” That put me in a very difficult position. Actually, it is against the law to do that because I am assisting someone. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that they will not always prosecute people, but nothing is clear about this. We know from surveys that Dignity in Dying has done that something like 600 people take their own lives because they don’t want to go through the suffering. But it is all behind closed doors, in sometimes very violent ways. When you look at things like that, you say, “How is the law protecting anyone at the moment?” I have come to the conclusion that we don’t have a legal framework, and because of my research on patients I would say that it is actually very unsafe. So, paradoxically, a law that talks about these things, which produces safeguards, is a huge improvement on where we are at the moment. That is the first point.

The second point I would make is that, as the Committee has talked about, there are already complex decisions. We make them all the time. We assess capacity. If someone comes to us and says, “I want to do a lasting power of attorney,” you need to assess capacity. When a relative says to you, “I have lasting power of attorney; I can speak on behalf of my mother”—or whatever else—you say, “No—I still want to speak to your mother.” There are many areas where the law is quite well defined in that respect. So, we are already doing that.

There are very grey areas where people take the decision to refuse treatment. I think it is very difficult. We seem to be happy to be saying, “All right, we will support you, but you agree not to take any food and water and you will dehydrate to death,” or if someone has end-stage motor neurone disease and says, “I want you to pull my tube out,” to say, “We will sedate you while we do that.” So, these things happen already. And from my understanding, the law will bring a clear legal framework for doing that. And actually, I think it will protect doctors and patients in the decisions they make. That is why I think we have to move now.

We have put in some safeguards. Many doctors are very good at assessing this—in terms of mental capacity, for example. We are doing it all the time. It is an integral part of our training. I am not saying it is perfect. I take the points about coercion, and it is difficult. But again, we are becoming more aware of this as a society. Typically, as GPs, we are given training about trying to identify domestic abuse, how to deal with that and so on. I think things are improving. I am not saying that there is no coercion; we don’t know. The point is that at the moment, we have no monitoring. If we have a legal framework, we will know how many people have chosen assisted death; we will know that they have gone through a process—we will know all these things. It just makes it much more clear and open for everyone. I think it will make the quality of the conversations we have with dying people even better as well. There are many, many reasons why I came to that conclusion when I thought about it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is really helpful. Dr Mullock, do you want to add anything?

Dr Mullock: I agree with most of the things that I am aware of that Professor Esmail just talked about. I would add that at the moment, people go sooner than they would wish to die because they have to go to Switzerland while they are still well enough to travel. They also have this terrible fear that their loved ones will be prosecuted by the police, which creates huge amounts of stress and is really unpleasant. I agree that having a system of prospective assessment of the person, rather than retrospective—when it is too late after they have died—will absolutely be a better and more compassionate approach, and provide better safeguards than we have at the moment.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Q If I may, I will push Professor House on the evidence he was giving to Mr Atkinson’s questions, so that I understand the necessity for psychiatric assessment under the current legal framework. Clearly there are degrees here. If a patient who has diabetes refuses to take insulin but would otherwise be able to manage their disease, then they would be referred to you, but is it your experience that if a patient rejected a round of chemotherapy, they would usually be subject to a psychiatric assessment?

Professor House: No, these things depend on the circumstances. If somebody says, “I’ve had enough of this. I’ve had chemotherapy and I don’t want any more,” they would not be subject to that, unless it was such a sudden change in the context of other changes in the person that the oncologist treating them thought something needed further explanation; it would not be terribly common, no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q I have a question for Baroness Falkner. I want particularly to probe the socioeconomic duty. What is your assessment of that as it relates to agency and control at the end of life? My constituents in Sunderland, unfortunately, are on average notably less well off than the rest of the UK. Is it not the case that at the moment there is choice at the end of life for people who are well off and able to travel to Switzerland, but poorer people do not have that choice? What is the EHRC’s view from a socioeconomic point of view?

Baroness Falkner: For clarity, a socioeconomic duty has not been incorporated. It is the current Government’s intention to incorporate that part of the Equality Act, but it has not been incorporated so we are not looking at it through that specific prism. But you make a very valid point because inequalities in healthcare, housing and all the associated factors that play into good health and wellbeing are there, and they exist palpably—even across geographical parts, from one bit of an area to another. They play actively into it.

Ms Hadi will be able to give better testimony than I could on this but, from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get.

Fazilet Hadi: On health inequality, I take your point about how some of us can afford to fly off to Switzerland and some cannot, but some of us live in boroughs where we will die 10 years earlier and some of us have learning disabilities and might die 27 years earlier. I know you are looking at clauses, but this Bill will go into the real world, and that is what is happening in the real world—people are not getting social care and not getting palliative care. They are dying earlier. More poor people will die earlier and more poor people will have fewer options, fewer choices, less nice homes and fewer facilities to support them. As Baroness Falkner said earlier, they will unfortunately have insufficient social care and palliative care. When we are looking at inequalities, we need to note that this Bill is going to be plunged into a society that has deep, entrenched health inequalities that do not play out well for people who are poorer.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you so much for giving evidence this afternoon. Perhaps I can provide a bit of reassurance, Baroness Falkner, on a couple of issues. The first thing I would say in terms of the Bill—

[The Chair]

Order. I think it is best if we ask questions of the witnesses. As I said, the Committee—you, not me—has allocated an hour to this, and I want to make sure every Member gets an opportunity to speak. We only have 20 minutes left, with five or six people to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

It will be a question. The Bill is very clear, in clause 2(3), that disabled people are not within its scope, but I would be really interested to know if there is anything you think we could add to make that clearer—I put that to Fazilet, too—because I want to be really clear about that, and I want to provide any reassurance that I can.

My main question is to Lord Sumption. You acknowledge the importance of autonomy and dignity at the end of life, and indeed article 8 of the European convention on human rights talks about bodily autonomy and self-determination. I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion on the issue of assisted dying. You also described the Bill as over-engineered, bureaucratic and impersonal—thank you for that. Would you agree with the chief medical officer, then, that we should avoid making the choice of assisted dying a “bureaucratic thicket” and keep the safeguards robust but simple? If so, what do you think that could look like?

Lord Sumption: I do agree with that. The chief medical officer, at least in the extract from his evidence that I saw, was not very specific about how the thicket could be loosened a bit. I have made one suggestion that I think would make a significant difference, which is the removal of the clause 12 stage. That is the principal point. The medical input from the two referee doctors is an important but private and informal process, whereas the proceedings of a court are extremely public and formal, and also productive of a very considerable delay. That would make a considerable difference in the direction that you have been talking about.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Baroness Falkner, do you want to come in on the point about how we could make the Bill more robust in terms of those protections?

Baroness Falkner: Can I just pick up the point about section 6 of the Equality Act 2010? That is clear, but it was not written with the intention of applying in these circumstances; it is a very narrow definition of disability. Excluding disabled people in that sense is a good thing and we support that, but it does not go far enough in our view.

Fazilet Hadi: I do not know how you can exclude disabled people, because there is a huge overlap between disabled people and people who will at some point become terminally ill. I find that challenging. I do not think that separation can happen in the letter of the Bill. There will be disabled people who are also terminally ill people.

On the wider point about what that will mean for other disabled people, who this Bill does not cover at all, I agree that the Bill is trying to circumscribe what it covers, but in the real world is it very likely that it will not have implications for the way people, doctors and health authorities think about disabled lives? I understand that the Bill’s drafters do not have that intention, but again, in the real world, where disabled people already face challenges in their lives being valued, we will come across that shift in culture more widely than this Bill wants to happen.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q You raise a really important point. There is a range of different views within the disabled community, and we heard some of them this morning. A professor of disability rights made the point that disabled people also do not want to be excluded from the Bill, because if you have a terminal illness and you are disabled, you should have the same rights as everyone else. I do not know what your thoughts are on that.

Fazilet Hadi: I think when it comes down to individuals, as I say, you are not going to be able to work out whether someone is disabled, terminally ill, black—people have so many identities. The issue for us, and the reason we are opposed to it, is not that we do not think that what is happening to people at the end of their lives is difficult—of course it is. But we took the view that we are trying to create a society where disabled people are equal and valued, and in that sense the Bill actually makes it harder for us to reach a disability-inclusive society. We come at it from that view. As parliamentarians, I know you want to look at the problems of individuals, but you also have a responsibility to think about the society we want to create. I and other disabled people feel that we already have an uphill struggle convincing people that our lives are of equal value, and this Bill hinders us in that aspiration and ambition, rather than helping us.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you.

[Jake Richards]

Q Dr Graham, in paragraph 21 of your very helpful written evidence, you say that the judicial involvement in the process strengthens the Bill, in terms of convention compatibility. Do you agree with Lord Sumption about the effect on convention compatibility if that stage were not present, and do you have any comments on the suitability of a judicial function, and whether there is any alternative?

Dr Graham: I am afraid my answer will be quite short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am slightly concerned that we are having a conversation about the process, rather than about the actual Bill. I am not sure whether that is in scope of the work of the Committee.

[The Chair]

I am allowing latitude to tease the matters out, but I am sure that the witnesses have heard what you have to say.

Baroness Falkner: I will briefly conclude. Any bit of additional analysis is welcome, but quite a lot of additional analysis needs to be done, and we would welcome that.

Fazilet Hadi: Disabled people are not a homogenous group. Just like the general population, disabled people will have all sorts of views. Probably some will be very informed about this debate, and others will not be. Our position as Disability Rights UK and the disabled people’s movement is not about counting how many people are supportive or not supportive; it is much more about the knowledge and evidence that we have about how society works, how discrimination works, how equality works, and the barriers that we face.

I take the point that you are looking at the clauses of the Bill, but you were testing the real-world implementation and implications of the Bill when I was listening to the earlier session. I will just say some of the things that are in the real world at the moment, and these have been mentioned: insufficient social care and healthcare; insufficient palliative care; rampant and worsening health inequalities; disability discrimination, and the devaluing of disabled lives. We only have to go back five years, to the covid pandemic, to see how disabled lives were devalued. We all know about the “Do not attempt resuscitation” notices. We all know that disabled people sometimes did not receive access to critical care. We all know that young people with learning disabilities were disproportionately dying. I really think the real-world implications always have to be tested. This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

Q I have a short final question. Is Marie Curie’s position basically that if palliative care does not improve, assisted dying should not be introduced in this country?

Sam Royston: We are neutral on the question of whether assisted dying should be introduced. We are not neutral on the question of whether palliative care should be improved.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you, witnesses, for joining us this afternoon. The good news for us all, on the palliative care conversation, is that we have in the room the Minister responsible for palliative care, who has heard those arguments loud and clear. Indeed, Second Reading showed that there is a huge amount of good will in the House for improvements in palliative care. I agree with you, Mr Royston, that it is not an either/or. We have to do both, and I think this House is very keen and prepared to do both. Hopefully, the implementation period will provide some reassurance, because this will not happen for a number of years. We have got time to make those improvements alongside each other while still giving terminally ill people the choice that I firmly believe they deserve.

Dr Neerkin, on that point, yesterday we heard a range of views from palliative care professionals, and there are a range of views within the sector around assisted dying. Could you tell us a bit about your views as a result of your more than 25 years of experience as a consultant physician in palliative medicine?

Dr Neerkin: First of all, death and dying is not owned by palliative care. We are hearing a lot about palliative care, but we have also heard from GPs that they deal with a lot of death and dying, as does every other speciality. So first of all, we do not own death and dying. I think a lot is being put on palliative care, and palliative care is not a panacea for everything at the end of life. This is multifactorial; it is about good medical care, good social care, good care in the community and everything that can be provided for people of all backgrounds and all abilities and disabilities. I think that is really important to begin with.

I am very lucky to work in a trust that has a huge amount of backup for palliative care, interventional pain control and psychology. We have great backup to provide great end of life care, which is not available all across the country. Despite that, there is still a need for assisted dying, because that does not answer every single question. What I have seen over the years is that people want some control when they lose all other control and they do not feel dignified. It is not just about being a burden; they do not want their loved ones to see them suffering and to lose all dignity in front of their loved ones, as they are doing. As we see in other countries, people want to have that choice. It does not necessarily mean they will take it up in the end, but to know that they can choose assisted dying is incredibly important to them, and it gives them advocacy and a bit of autonomy and control where they lose control.

Those are the questions that are brought to me when people say, “Can you not just hasten this death?” People just want to have the conversation around it. Even if I were to say to them, “If I had a tablet here and now that I could give you, would you take it?” probably eight out of 10 times people would say no, because inherently people have a will to live. We are talking very much about dying and people wanting to die, but most people I treat and most families really want their loved one to live. It is just about being able to have the choice and feeling that, if things become unbearable for them, or they feel they have lost all dignity and all control in a situation, they have got a bit of control left.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Dr Hussain, I hear your concerns about the broader impact on society, and certainly in terms of ethnic minorities. Have you seen any evidence that that is an issue in other jurisdictions? The evidence we have heard is that people from ethnic minorities are underrepresented in assisted dying statistics, meaning that potentially there is discrimination the other way, in that they are not accessing it in the way that perhaps people from better-off backgrounds are.

Dr Hussain: That is a really important point. Over-whelmingly, going into the communities I have worked with for a long time in Bradford, I have found that the big impact post covid is this big fear—fear that this will impact them, and fear that it will result in them not only not accessing our services and therefore having poorer deaths, but also not accessing other healthcare intervention. As I said, the people I spoke to identified a small number of people who would want it, but they were structurally disadvantaged. Again, we need that clarity. If people are structurally disadvantaged, and they are doing this because they cannot get culturally competent and trauma-informed mental health support and social support, do I offer them assisted dying or not? That is a really important issue. In terms of them having inequitable access, I am not actually against it, but the biggest impact I see in a UK context post covid is this massive fear that they have, and I am really worried about that. I want to offer better support to structurally disadvantaged people who want this.

Issues were also identified about the prognosis of people who want to go down this route. They are more likely to die of conditions that are harder to prognosticate, such as cardiac disease, which has a fluctuating trajectory. There were concerns about how families will be involved. Families are really important for decision making, and our research shows that they are the safeguard against discrimination, so we need to find a way for them to be involved. There were also worries about coercion and mental health. People brought that up to me spontaneously, saying that it was often missed in their communities or misunderstood by health and social care services.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On that point, do you think there could be better training around coercion?

[The Chair]

Order. If people want to intervene, can they please do so through the Chair? Otherwise, we will get into chaos. Could you please finish answering the question?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Sorry.

Dr Hussain: I really liked what you said yesterday; we need gold standard training. The thought yesterday about what happens with capacity made me think straight away about cases in the last few months where we, as a palliative care team, thought that someone had capacity, and the other team did not. That happens all the time in palliative care; it is a really frail population, and it is really complex. The safeguards for assisted dying must be higher, so I like the idea of gold standard training and, crucially, gold standard implementation and evaluation.

I looked yesterday to see what the evidence is that capacity assessments are great and fine, and there was none. I tried to look at whether there are differences for different communities, but we have not even looked at that. However, we do know that people who are racialised as black are 3.5 times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, so the chances are that there are discrepancies there.

Similarly, with coercion, do we know if safeguarding training is absolutely fit for purpose? We all see stories in the newspapers every year in which people who have come in contact with healthcare professionals who have had this safeguarding training end up dying. It is not fit for purpose, and we need to have a gold standard.

Perhaps that will filter out and bring everyone else up, but, with my academic hat on, I would say that the implementation gap is the biggest thing. In palliative care, we have been trying for a long time to train up people who are not palliative care specialists. We need to be thinking about the implementation of that in a system under pressure. We also need to think not only about what the training is, but about how we implement it and, crucially, evaluate it, so that we can be confident that it is safe.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that we are now halfway through and we have seven Members to go. We have already had six questions, and we have seven to go in the next half hour. I repeat that I do not want to interrupt our witnesses at the very end to stop the panel.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Dr Fellingham, given your experience of both the British and the Australian healthcare systems, do you believe there are any fundamental differences that would affect how assisted dying is implemented in this country? If there are, how might we be able to mitigate them?

Dr Fellingham: In the UK you are missing a number of the challenges that we have, such as the geographical challenges in a state as vast as Western Australia. You also have a golden opportunity to look, as you are, across every jurisdiction that already has laws in operation and cherry-pick the best bits of what is working well in those jurisdictions, and so create the very best, most robust and most patient-centred legislation you can.

The healthcare systems are broadly similar. We are both first-world, developed western countries. We are still operating in a context of resource limitation, but not resource limitation that is so prohibitive that it would make it particularly difficult to enact a law in the UK. The United Kingdom would be broadly able to follow any of the laws that exist in Australia and implement them very successfully.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning. I am interested in following up on what Dr Mewett said about the relationship with palliative care, which has an important role to play in end of life treatment. What is the relationship between assisted dying and the palliative care world like? Also, I would like to hear a bit more about the multidisciplinary board, which I think you set up, Dr McLaren. What does the multidisciplinary approach look like in your jurisdictions?

Dr Mewett: There is no doubt that traditionally palliative care has eschewed any idea of voluntary assisted dying, for a number of historical reasons that I have spoken about in other fora and will not go into now. But it is changing, and there is a general change in attitude, especially among the younger palliative care training doctors and young clinicians, who see this as part of patient-centred care, honouring the patient’s autonomy and choice, while still addressing deeply their concerns and suffering in pain management and so on.

That will see a change. I do understand where it has come from. When one looks at it almost forensically, it does not stack up and will continue not to stack up to have someone saying, “Well, VAD is not part of palliative care.” VAD is part of patient choice and it will be part of palliative care ongoing. That will evolve over time.

I am sorry but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question about the multidisciplinary aspect, Ms Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Was it a multidisciplinary board that Dr McLaren set up to look at the safety and quality of voluntary assisted dying?

Dr McLaren: This was born out of when we started as a Victorian group. We were very individual and we interpreted the law in our own ways. We complied with it as best we could, but we did not have a centralised discussion board or peer group set up at the time. We have propagated advice through the other states to ensure that there are what we call community practices, where clinicians can discuss their cases and learn from each other.

Several months after, from I think June to November, we had no interconnection with other VAD-practising doctors. In November, we had a forum set up where we are able to connect and talk about difficult cases and how we would each interpret them. As the subsequent states came online, we were approached by some of the practitioners from other states saying, “We don’t really want to reinvent that wheel, so can we join your community of practice?” Because it was set up by our state government, they were unable to join, so I saw a gap in terms of creating an organisation where we could propagate that knowledge and not all start from scratch.

It initially started as a group of voluntary assisted dying medical practitioners, and we would discuss cases across the board and ask things like, “What would you do under your legislation?” and we all learned from that. Then we were approached by pharmacists, nurses and others involved in voluntary assisted dying provision, including legislators who wanted to contribute to the custodians of the voluntary assisted dying law, who are the people who actually run the projects. That then led to the creation of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand, which is a multidisciplinary group of predominantly doctors, but we do have nurses, pharmacists and legislators involved. We have had two annual conferences where we discuss issues faced by many of our practitioners. That has been a great resource for people.

We are developing standards. We feel that in our legislation there was perhaps too much about instilling what the standards are. We feel as though the appropriate-ness of such things as telehealth should be regulated via standards rather than via legislation, which it currently is in Australia. These are the types of topics we have weighed in on and created position statements for in order to protect the laws that we believe in, uphold and like to think of ourselves as responsible practitioners of.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q Dr Fellingham, to circle back to the issue of training, could you go into more detail about what the initial training consists of—the nature of it and the number of hours—and how that compares with the refresher training? What is the system for mentorship, supervision, appraisal and continuing professional development requirements?

Dr Fellingham: It is important to reflect that only people who are at quite a significant point through their own specialty careers are eligible to become assisted dying practitioners in this country. For instance, I was a consultant anaesthetist and I had already been practising for more than a year. I had lived experience of caring for patients both living and dying, both anticipated and unexpectedly, over a career spanning more than 10 years, before I came to the point of assisted dying.

To become eligible to offer assisted dying, I then had to undertake training developed in a special package by the Queensland University of Technology. That training package takes about two days to complete and there is an exam at the end before someone can become eligible. The exam has a 95% pass rate.

Once someone has qualified with that training, they are offered the opportunity to give their details to the state-wide care navigator service. The vast majority of people opt to do that. Once they do that, they basically become engaged in this incredibly supportive, collaborative and nurturing multidisciplinary team within a professional organisation that, in our state, covers all the assisted dying practitioners—the doctors—but also the care navigators, the pharmacy service, the individual voluntary assisted dying programme managers and the end of life choices co-ordinators, who exist in all our hospital systems.

Because we are all consultants in our own specialties, there is not the same level of supervisory oversight as we would give to junior doctors—there are not forms that we fill in; we do not accredit one another—but we do acknowledge that we are all learning and growing in this space. These are new laws: even the oldest in Australia has only been going for five years. Every single one of us is motivated from a place of wanting to support, collaborate, grow and learn from one another, and ensure that the care we are offering to people in this challenging space is of the absolute highest quality.

We have a really robust community of practice. We meet monthly. Half those meetings are online to allow our regional practitioners to join, and half of them are face to face. They are extremely well-attended closed sessions where, especially over the time that we have developed relationships with one another, we find an incredibly supportive space to share our experiences and to learn, grow and develop from one another.

In terms of CPD, we all have to maintain our professional registration. I have both general and specialist registration with our supervisory body, which is like the General Medical Council. I complete my mandatory CPD requirements each year, as per my specialist college. On top of that, I have just redone the refresher training, which is once every three years. That is just what was mandated in our state. If someone has not done VAD practice, they have to do the whole thing again. That is only for people who have been active in this space. That training is shorter—it is about half a day—but it is really a reflection of what we are doing on a weekly basis. We are living and breathing this work, and really strongly collaborating with everybody else who does it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that has to bring this session to a conclusion. Dr McLaren, Dr Mewett and Dr Fellingham, thank you for giving up your evening for us. The Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much indeed and have a good night. While we are changing over, I call the Member in charge of the Bill to move a motion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move,

That in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the sittings resolution agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025 and amended on 28 January 2025, leave out “Professor Jane Monckton-Smith OBE” and insert “Hourglass”.

Unfortunately, we found out in the early hours of this morning that one of our witnesses is unable to join us this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Tom Shakespeare, Dr Miro Griffiths, Yogi Amin and Chelsea Roff gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am sorry, but we still have more Members and questions than we have time, so I am going to come down to one question per Member.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning—it is incredibly helpful. I am going to come back to clause 2 of the Bill, which concerns the definition of terminal illness. I am very clear on who the Bill is aimed at helping and who it is not aimed at involving. The definition says that the person has to have

“an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

It also says, for the avoidance of doubt, that this cannot be “a mental disorder” or “a disability”. I hear your concerns, and I want to support you and work with you on this. I am keen to know: what else do you want to see in the Bill that would reassure you that this is not about disabled people or people with mental disorders?

Dr Griffiths: I am conscious of time, so I will be very quick. My first point would be, why would you stick it at six months then? Why not have it at seven days, for example, as a way to take out our concerns? If you are talking about prognosis, let us go back to Chelsea’s point and the point that I made before. My condition is a neuromuscular condition. I have had meetings with clinicians where some have referred to it as a terminal illness, some have referred to it as a life-limiting condition, and others have referred to it as a progressive condition. The articulation of the ideas and the ways in which we think about conditions show the complexity of the issue. We are talking about terminal illness, and people who are terminally ill do constitute disabled people under the Equality Act, so you cannot make the distinction.

If you want to be quite proactive about it, then why not reduce the prognosis timeframe and make it as short as possible to take out the concerns about prognosis, and the concerns around whether individuals are going to live longer or could be facilitated access to alternative treatments to prolong life? I do not understand why we are fixated on a six-month prognosis because, as we have seen in other countries, as soon as you pass the legislation on six months, you will have individuals who say, “Why not seven months? Why not five months?” You will have campaigners who will say, “This does not include me and I have been campaigning for this.” There will be pressure to change and Governments will change. There is no guarantee that you can make that the eligibility criteria will be fixed.

[Danny Kruger]

Q I want to give Professor Shakespeare the chance to respond to the point that we have heard. I am interested in whether you recognise that many disabled people—in fact, not just disabled people, but anybody who declines treatment that keeps them alive—would qualify as terminally ill under the terms of the Bill? What protections we could give to prevent that?

Professor Shakespeare: First of all, a terminal illness is defined as a “condition which cannot be reversed by treatment” I know that that does not mean a cure; you are not aiming at a cure—but it says, “cannot be reversed”. Surely that would not include things like HIV and diabetes because they can be reversed. They cannot be cured; they are still there, but they can be reversed with insulin, antiretrovirals or whatever.

I think, yes, terminally ill people are disabled people almost always, but that does not mean that all disabled people are terminally ill. Even if you have a disease or a condition—like Miro does or like other people do—that will probably result in your death eventually, you are not going to die tomorrow or in six months. You may die in 16 years or whatever. It is very difficult to define terminal illness, and that is why six months, I think, is used in this Bill.

Very recently, my aunt died. She was unconscious for the last month or so of having cancer and then she finally died. She would not have been able to express her will and her preference to have assisted dying, even if she wanted it. Therefore, I think six months when you can have capacity, you can anticipate, you know you are going to die but you want to have control in the manner of your death, is more useful than seven days or less, when you might be unconscious and you might not be able to express a will or preference.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q My question is to you, Mr Greenwich. I understand that in New South Wales—and please do correct me if I am wrong—similarly to the Bill we are proposing, you adopted legalised assisted dying for those who are terminally ill and will die within six months, but you also added an additional criterion, which was within 12 months for a neurodegenerative disease such as motor neurone disease. That element is not proposed in our Bill, but we have heard from other witnesses over previous days about that issue. What reflections might you have regarding that, and why did you add that element into the Bill beyond the six months that we are proposing here?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for your question. At the outset, I will just stress that every jurisdiction should legislate the form of voluntary assisted dying that is appropriate to them. In New South Wales, that was six months for a terminal illness, or 12 months if that terminal illness was a neurodegenerative disorder. We had learned from the other schemes in Australia that that was going to be important because of the decline that occurs in neurodegenerative disorders like motor neurone disease, for example. It was because of that that we went down that path.

Professor Blake: I should add that in Queensland, there is no such distinction in life expectation between other diseases and neurodegenerative diseases. Queensland legislation is different: it sets a 12-month period of expected death, and the reason for that approach was in response to feedback from people living with neurodegenerative disease that they felt that they were being put in a different position to people suffering from, or experiencing, other terminal illnesses. The Queensland Parliament took a different approach to address that particular feedback.

Dr Furst: From South Australia’s perspective, we are similar to New South Wales; we have less than six months for all conditions bar neurodegenerative conditions, which is less than 12 months. As a clinician, personally, I think that 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions is really helpful, because—as you have heard—if you are looking at prognosis and trajectories, with things like cancer, a patient will be going along and then often have quite a steep and rapid decline. That six-month prognosis is quite noticeable, but for patients with conditions like motor neurone disease, their decline can be slow and very distressing to them. Also, when trying to balance the prognosis along with getting them through the process, 12 months is really helpful, so if there was any chance, I would be strongly advocating for that.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us this morning. I would like to address my comments to Alex Greenwich, if I may, but also come back to Dr Furst and Professor Blake.

It is really valuable for us as a Committee to hear your reflections on the experience of the process of passing this legislation. How did you manage to keep that process patient-centred but also take into account the concerns around the broader societal issues, particularly when it comes to equality and human rights—those really important issues? What was that process like, and what are your reflections on it? Also, Dr Furst and Professor Blake, one thing that I feel really strongly about is having really good training around assisted dying, and end-of-life care and choice. Would you like to make any comments on what that looks like?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for that question. I will take you through a little bit of the journey to voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales, what encouraged action, and then the safeguards that we put in place.

The New South Wales coroner had reported to us that there were a number of really horrible suicides of people with terminal illnesses who felt they had no option—that those were cruel and lonely suicides. That was backed up by paramedics and police who would arrive on site. Myself and my parliamentary colleagues decided, “We can do better, and we can regulate in this space.” Voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales is an important form of suicide prevention. What voluntary assisted dying does, in the model that we legislated, is ensure that a person who has a terminal illness and knows that it is going to be a cruel and painful end of their life is instead directed to a doctor—a doctor who will be able to take them through all of their palliative care options, provide and link them with social supports, and give them the choice to have a death that is better than their illness would otherwise provide.

It has been important to make sure that our legislation is limited to that cohort of people who are terminally ill and know they will have a cruel end of life. Our legislation is not about people with anorexia nervosa. It is not about people with a disability. It is not about people who are feeling a burden. It is about a very limited and narrow cohort of people who know that they are going to have a very cruel and painful end of their life, and want that control to know that they can have a death that is better than what their illness would otherwise provide.

We have ensured that decision-making capacity needs to be enduring. We have ensured that a person cannot be under any form of coercion. We ensured that we had a really strong period of implementation, from the time the Bill was passed to 18 months later, when it came into effect, to make sure that our health system and the various doctors required training.

In New South Wales, the experience of voluntary assisted dying is that it has been a form of suicide prevention, and that it has also been, as I explained earlier, very pro-palliative care. As I reflect on our parliamentary debate, it was also one of the first times that our Parliament had grappled with the concept of death. We were very honest about it, and we were very honest in having to admit that we are all going to die, that there are some people with some terminal illnesses who are going to die in a really cruel and painful way, and that we could provide them with an option of control, peace and respect. We believe, and our annual reports into our legislation indicate, that we have been able to provide that. I am happy to answer any further questions, but I will wrap up on that.

Professor Blake: Given that the Western Australia legislation has been in force rather longer than the other jurisdictions that have been talked about today, we have had the opportunity to reflect upon it—I am speaking here as a lawyer; I assume that is why I have been invited to talk—and that has revealed some of the very good things about the working of the legislation, but also some of the challenges that have emerged.

As Dr Furst has said, the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions varies slightly, but it follows a particular legislative model, and is highly prescriptive. It requires a number of requests and, in Western Australia, assessment by two different practitioners. In Western Australia, there is no judicial double-checking of that process. Although I note that that is contemplated within the UK law, that is not something that we have found to be necessary or even appropriate in Western Australia, and I think that would be the case in other Australian jurisdictions.

One of the issues we have experienced is that there is a struggle to get people to take up the training, whether that be medical practitioners or nurse practitioners. One of the thoughts around that has been the very prescriptive nature of the model, which requires a lot of work on the part of the practitioners. It is worth bearing in mind when looking at your piece of legislation that the more prescriptive it is, the more work it requires on the part of practitioners, and that is a lot of work. We need those people to undergo the training in order that the process is done properly and all the safeguards that are included within the legislation—and they are extensive—are respected. That is something to bear in mind.

We have prescriptive provisions around capacity and voluntariness and lack of coercion. I would add that we also have a requirement around residency. If we are looking at when the legislation has come before a tribunal or judicial body, the only circumstance—in Western Australia, at least—where it has come before the tribunal, which is the State Administrative Tribunal, has been where the practitioner has regarded the patient as not eligible on the grounds of not fulfilling the residency requirements. There has been no other ground on which a matter has been taken to a judicial body.

You asked about the training. That is an essential requirement for practitioners who are involved in making assessments and in the whole process. It is intrinsic to the operation of the Act. The feedback I have heard is aligned with what Dr Furst has said—that no divisions have arisen within the practitioners here, and that those who have chosen to do the training are indeed very valued and very much appreciated by the people who have accessed the scheme.

I will say two more things about the regulation. One is that in the report that has been handed down, the only negative feedback has been about delays. That has been identified as being due to a lack of education among health professionals. One of the recommendations of the report is that education really needs to increase so that people’s journey on VAD is not unnecessarily delayed and, perhaps, their wishes are not able to be granted.

The second thing is on conscientious objectors: 13.7% of applications for VAD in Western Australia from 2023 to 2024 were declined on the basis of conscientious objection. But in Western Australia, unlike some other Australian jurisdictions, if a practitioner declines to become involved in the process, they are required by law to give the patient an information sheet outlining options around voluntary assisted dying. That is actually mandated in the legislation.

I have probably said enough for now, so I will hand over to Chloe.

Dr Furst: I completely agree with Meredith that the training is fundamental. For most jurisdictions, it probably takes a full day. It is often an in-person event followed by an exam, which you have to pass. In South Australia, we had a whole lot of mandatory questions that you actually had to pass to be eligible, to make sure that you were upholding the legislation.

This is so different from anything else in medicine. In any other part of medicine that I practise, if I see a process that I think can be improved—if I see efficiencies that can be made or bits of the system that are not adding to patient care—I can choose to adapt the process as I see fit to give the patient the care that I want to give or that is compatible with what the patient wishes. That is so different from voluntary assisted dying, where, as Meredith said, it is so legislated, down to who can be a witness for various documents. As a doctor, the amount of documentation that is required for voluntary assisted dying is second to nothing. We just do not do that kind of documentation in any other areas of medicine. So it is quite different, and it really does require being quite precise around that documentation and making sure that you are meeting all the timeframes and guidelines. The training is hugely important in terms of the operational component.

There is also the training around end of life and conversations, and how you support the patient and the families. That is a lot harder to teach. That is, I guess, why people will fall into this, and why a large number of palliative care doctors will do it—because it is already second nature to them or they already have the relationship with the patient and they see these conversations as something they are good at and good at facilitating.

So there are two parts of that training that are really important, and then, as Meredith said, there is also the training we need to be giving to the rest of our workforce, and really all health practitioners. A patient might ask the social worker, the orderly or the dietician about assisted dying, and they have to know how they can respond and how they can connect that individual to the right practitioner. That is really important. We have done a lot of work in South Australia, as all the other jurisdictions have, around upskilling the whole workforce, because this is everyone’s role and job.

I also wanted to speak briefly on what we in South Australia call the gag clause. In South Australia and Victoria, we are not allowed to bring up voluntary assisted dying with patients, and that is really, really problematic. From my perspective, it leads to poor provision of care. In medicine, when I am talking to a patient, in every other area, if they needed treatment, I would be obliged, and it would be good practice, to tell them about all the treatment options that are available to them. If someone had cancer, I would want to be telling them about good palliative care, potentially surgery, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy, yet voluntary assisted dying is the one thing we are not allowed to talk about and is taken off the menu. Some people may not know that voluntary assisted dying is available to them. They might be waiting for me as the doctor to bring it up to them. I have brought up every other option for them; why am I not able to talk about voluntary assisted dying? I just think it is really important that we do not stigmatise voluntary assisted dying and that we see it as a valid option for people.

Professor Blake: To add to what Chloe said, in Western Australia practitioners can raise voluntary assisted dying as long as it is in association with other end-of-life choices, but the way the legislation is worded is confusing, so one of the recommendations in the most recent report is that that be removed altogether so that voluntary assisted dying is treated like any other treatment option. As Chloe indicated, the evidence was that treating voluntary assisted dying differently can compromise the whole end-of-life journey, because it interferes with discussion of other end-of-life options. The strong recommendation from the board is that it be removed altogether and that voluntary assisted dying be treated just like any other appropriate treatment option so that the patient has a true choice.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

It was clause 26, sorry.

Professor Hoyano: Under the Canadian system, the provinces each have a college of physicians and surgeons. However, what has happened is that everyone has worked collaboratively across all 12 jurisdictions, plus the federal Government. We now have the Canadian MAiD—medical assistance in dying—curriculum, which was developed by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers in consultation with experts from across the country. It is providing a comprehensive, bilingual, nationally accredited training programme that is evidence-based and is based on the learning that has happened in Canada since the legislation was first enacted.

There is also a model practice standard for MAiD and a companion document, “Advice to the Profession”, which all the medical colleges have signed up to. It helps practitioners to align their practice with the official guidance and assists health professional regulatory authorities to ensure that the public is protected. Coercion lies at the heart of these documents.

The regulations for the monitoring of medical assistance in dying require—and this is something else that I suggest be changed—that in Canada there has to be an annual report from the federal Government, which is very granular in detail, from right across the country. It happens at least once a year; there was one year in which we had two reports going into all the details. On coercion, we know that in 2023, when they examined the reasons for ineligibility, there were 41 cases across the country in which the physicians determined that the person had not made a voluntary request without external pressure, and it was therefore declined. We need to know is what is happening out there, and I do not think that a report every five years is going to help. We need to enlist all the medical professions involved in signing up to very detailed codes of practice, but we also need the training that Amanda has referred to as essential.

The last point that I would make is that McGill University is launching a national palliative care hub that is available to any practitioner in the country and from which they can receive guidance and support with helping and advising patients who are receiving palliative care. One of the options is, if the patient desires it, how to deal with these requests.

Dr Ward: Now that I have had a look at clause 26, may I answer the Member’s question? I think it is a very well drafted provision, and it is very similar to what we have in Scotland. In particular, I know we are concerned about people being coerced into assisted dying, but internationally it is actually the converse. Some jurisdictions are considering putting provisions in their Bill because family members are trying to put undue pressure on others not to make an assisted dying decision.

On my understanding of the reporting in Kim’s Bill, it is just not a five-year review: the Registrar General, the chief medical officer and the Secretary of State are involved. Again, I commend the Member in charge for the reporting procedures being very robust in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q For clarity, Dr Ward, you are right that clause 34 requests that the chief medical officer submits an annual report. You clearly have many years of experience in this subject. For you, what does best practice look like when it comes to assisted dying, end of life choice and end of life care? That is what we are all aiming for in our deliberations. How do we keep it patient-centred?

I notice that you have also spoken a lot about misinformation; how do we tackle that? How do we make sure we are dealing with facts rather than speculation? In particular, how do we provide reassurance to marginalised communities and people with disabilities, who are understandably nervous about this change in the law? When it comes to safeguards and protections, what does best practice look like?

Dr Ward: To take your last point first, we must involve them in the process and have an open dialogue with them. That means not just in the consultation process, when you are considering passing legislation, but when you have your implementation taskforce, on which you must make sure you have representation from across all the stakeholders involved, including people with disabilities and people with terminal illnesses.

I would point to the fact that best practice is about balancing the autonomy, dignity and compassion that the Bill aims to achieve by giving people the option of assisted dying, while also protecting vulnerable people who feel that there are worries and concerns. However, having worked in this area for 13 years and seen people who would really benefit from having this option, and living now in a jurisdiction that has it, I would point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have seen are the terminally ill who want and need this choice. It is about taking a holistic and evidenced-based approach.

You as a Committee will hear from the great and the good across the board, and I am pleased that the Committee is taking account of lived experience, because that is very important to inform the decision-making process. It is about making sure that we are going to the source of evidence and using peer-reviewed data and Government data. Again, as I said earlier, you really need to trust your international colleagues who have gone before you on this. We need to consider what the Bill does versus inaccurate perceptions of or speculations on what it might do. The task here is to consider what is in front of you, not what might happen down the road.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q Dr Ward, I think the point about a holistic and evidence-based approach is critical. In the work that you did in the Scottish example you gave, how was the terminal illness definition arrived at? How are you capturing those people who are vulnerable and want to have an assisted death, but might end up limited in their scope and ability to access it?

Dr Ward: Look: assisted dying is the same as any other healthcare choice. It is always going to be limited. We are not going to reach everyone that we absolutely would want to. There are people who want to have this option and this choice who will not qualify under a terminal illness definition, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We looked at international evidence from Commonwealth countries that are very closely linked to Scotland and the UK. We drew the line with the definition that the person has an advanced progressive illness from which they are unable to recover and that will cause their premature death. For us, that demands the support of Members of Parliament in Scotland and the support of the public.

I really stress the fact that each jurisdiction has to legislate according to its own constitutional, societal, legal and cultural considerations, which is what we have done in Scotland. That is the definition that is working for us now. Previously, there were more liberal attempts that did not gain the support of the House. We believe that we have arrived at a situation that is very similar to the definition of terminal illness here in Westminster, and that is both safe and compassionate but also draws the line so that people who should not be able to access this do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Q It is great to hear about the case for common law over the Human Rights Act. Yesterday we heard about parliamentary sovereignty. This is a tremendous process we are having here.

Professor Hoyano said that the person in the street would not see the difference between a patient requesting to die by the withdrawal of treatment versus the active administration of fatal drugs, whereas I think you said, Professor Owen, that you did see a profound difference between that decision on the part of the patient and also, presumably, the act on the part of the medical professional, in the case of either the withdrawal of treatment or the administration of fatal medication. You said that you would be happy to draw that out; could you do so?

Professor Owen: Yes. I am happy to try now, but also to do it further with some written submissions if that would be helpful, because it is such an important point. First, for the man on the street, or the person on the bus, one thing to remember—this comes out in the public opinion polling—is that when you ask about assisted dying, some people think that that is access to palliative care. There is a degree of misconceptions that are out there in the public that are important to bear in mind.

On the distinction between the decision around the refusal of life-sustaining treatment and the decision regarding assisted dying, what are the similarities? Well, they are both about life and death. What are the differences? One is a refusal; one is a request. One is traditionally considered to be about bodily integrity—it is the so-called shield of the person, or the patient, against the intervention on the body that is being made by the medical profession. You are giving the patient an important right, which is a shield-like right. That contrasts with a request for assisted dying, which is a request. You are involving other people in an act that is an act of ending one’s life. That is not something that the medical profession has been comfortable with, going back thousands of years.

So you can discern a number of differences. Could you reduce those differences to one thing and one thing only, and be particularly precise about it? Probably not. I think you are talking about differences that cluster and group, and which we overall accept as a difference of kind.

The other issue here that is important is intention. When you are assessing somebody’s decision to refuse a life-sustaining treatment, the doctor there does not have the intention to end a person’s life. That would be a concerning intention were it there—and sometimes it is looked for, actually, if it is disputed. But of course, when a doctor is involved with a process where somebody is seeking assistance in the ending of their life, it is quite difficult to say that the doctor does not have an intention to end life.

One could go on with a discussion of the differences, but the similarity is that we are talking about life and death.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q This has been an incredibly helpful panel, so thank you for all your expertise.

Let me come back to the content of the Bill, and to some of your points, Professor Owen. In terms of capacity and coercion, I think we are absolutely having these really important conversations. What concerns me a little bit, though, is whether we are saying we are not confident that two doctors, potentially a psychiatrist and an oncologist, and a judge can make assessments of capacity and coercion between them. What does that mean for things that are happening at the moment? We have talked about the withdrawal of end of life treatment and those things; those assessments must be being done now, all the time, but at the moment there is no legal framework around that. Surely, putting a legal framework around that and having all those multidisciplinary people involved has got to be a positive thing. Professor Hoyano, I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

Professor Hoyano: As I say, whereas I completely respect Professor Owen’s expertise in this as a psychiatrist, for me as a lawyer the question of capacity is a yes or no, necessarily. But capacity is always determined by the Court of Protection in respect of the decision that must be made by the person concerned: do they have the capacity to do it?

When we are talking about a determination of capacity, and also about coercion—which of course is part of capacity in a sense, because capacity is the autonomy of decision making—you are going to be having a very focused inquiry. It is not an inquiry into whether a person has capacity to manage their financial affairs. I probably do not have that capacity, but on something like this I would have capacity. It is important to recognise that it is a yes or no question, which the law has to draw and does draw, depending on the expertise of psychiatrists like Professor Owen, but also forming its own judgment from its own experience, which is why I think the Court of Protection really is the place where this should be.

There is one aspect of the Bill that worries me a lot, and that is the number of people who will be excluded by the provision that the medication must be self-administered. This would mean that Tony Nicklinson, who went all the way to the House of Lords to try to get the right to die, could not have it under this Bill, because he was paralysed. He was a tetraplegic, basically—he was paralysed from the neck down, with limited movement of his head, from a stroke. He lived for seven years with that condition and he would not have been able to self-administer. In fact, when he was denied by the House of Lords—anyone who has seen the Channel 4 programme will have watched him wail in despair—he refused all nutrition and hydration from that point until he died. That was the death he did not want, and I think we need to recognise that there are problems like that. In 2023 in Canada, across the entire country, only five patients opted to self-administer the medication—only five. Even when patients were capable of doing it, they wanted the doctor to do it instead, so let us remember that as well, please.

Dr Ward: Can I make a quick point about self-administration? This is something that in Scotland we looked into in great detail. In Scotland, we chose self-administration specifically because it does not just include ingestion or swallowing. There is a range of ways in which you can self-administer the medication, and I am happy to provide that information to the Committee if that would be helpful.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q Professor Owen, can I probe a little more something that you raised before—the interaction of potential impairment, potential family dynamics and so on in a way that is not malign, but that you think is a consideration? We have heard some evidence in the course of this week about whether there would be any benefit from a more multidisciplinary approach that could make a more rounded, psychosocial assessment of someone’s situation. That would be less about the clear test of whether there is capacity under the Mental Capacity Act and more about the wider considerations of those interactions. I just wonder whether the inclusion of, say, social workers or mental health professionals as part of a multidisciplinary approach would give you any reassurance on those points that you made.

Professor Owen: Good question. On the point about that interaction issue, it is not just me picking it up; it is the courts and the Court of Protection particularly. If you are interested, it is footnote (11) in the written submission from the Complex Life and Death Decisions group. The point that you make is well taken from my point of view. You have two doctors, essentially, doing the assessment. Some doctors can be very good at assessing social circumstances; some are not so good. I think it would be preferable to try to get a law that gets sight of social circumstances; one way of doing that may be to insert a requirement that a suitably experienced social worker is involved, so that there is some sensitivity to those contextual, relational, interpersonal effects, which, as I know you are aware, can be very subtle. A lot of these things are extremely difficult to pick up. They are easy to miss and, even when you are aware of them, there can be dilemmas about what to do with them.

Professor Hoyano: Might I add a postscript to that? A model that we could consider in this context is CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—in the family courts. It is a body of experts—civil servants, in effect—but they are independent and they are accustomed to dealing with specific context with social workers, for example. They investigate what should happen to a child in public law or private law proceedings. It occurs to me that something like that—a report from an equivalent body to the solicitor’s office, which I mentioned before—could be a very good way of building that in, because I completely agree that social workers are likely to be more professionally attuned, by virtue of their training and experience, to looking at the wider context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Certainly.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q We have heard a lot from witnesses this week about safeguarding. That is something I am keen to pursue. The Bill has a significant number of safeguards already, but is there anything else that you think we could add? I think all on the Bill Committee are interested in hearing such ideas. In particular, we are thinking about how we can protect people, such as people from disadvantaged backgrounds, older people—Dr Richards, I think you have experience of working with older people—people from a range of different backgrounds, and people with disabilities, so that we keep the Bill very much focused on the people it is designed to help, who are terminally ill people with less than six months to live, while addressing more of the broader concerns about some of the inequalities in society.

Professor Preston: In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about “do not resuscitate” orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things, whereas if you are having to opt into a system where you have to do something more, they will not feel like it. That does not happen in the hospital. It is about trust.

One of the issues in Switzerland—I must just add, the same Swiss system is being adopted in Germany and Austria, which already has a panel—is that they are trying to protect these people by keeping it one step removed, so that people do not feel that they are trying to be persuaded to an assisted death. Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group. Instead, they will sometimes allow the right-to-die associations in to do this and there are just a few hospitals that allow their staff to do it. It is all about trust.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is really helpful.

Dr Richards: I do not think there is any evidence that there is a loss of trust in doctors post legalisation—I just wanted to add that.

As I said in response to the earlier question, this is a categorically new thing that would be coming into society, which would cause cultural change in how we approach, think about and anticipate dying. It is a big deal—I know you all know that. Accompanying it, therefore, there needs to be really sensitive information delivery that is appropriate across society and that will alert people to this. In particular, if you are going to have a system where doctors are not allowed to raise it with patients, people need to know about it. That is one thing.

Reducing people’s fears is also important. I mean, there are so many misconceptions about assisted dying, even among people who have spent quite a lot of time reading about it and researching it. It is a very simple thing, but the discourse in society has been going on for so long that there is a lot of misunderstanding.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Can you give an example? What do you mean by that?

Dr Richards: Misunderstandings of what it is? Fundamentally, that it is not based on the principle of autonomy and that it is something that can be done to you, without your consent. You would not want the general public to think that. At a very basic level, it is understanding that assisted dying—the very phenomenon that that term encapsulates—is a phenomenon that starts with the patient. It is a request made by the patient because of their subjective assessment of their quality of life as they are dying. At a very fundamental level, you would want to communicate that to the public. It is a huge piece of work to have to create an informational context that is variegated according to the starting position of people’s knowledge base around it, and to bring in something that does not scare the public and so they see it as something that can be positive.

In jurisdictions that have legalised, even post-legalisation there continue to be elements that resist it. However, you start to see positive stories of the kind of ceremonial aspects that can come when you can time death. There is a whole cultural piece around new rites—new rites around dying that are being created when people choose to have an assisted death, and the new dying time or space that is opened up there, as well as the intentional actions that can happen from people’s social groups. Post-legalisation, it is not just fear—I think you get a balance of stories coming through—but it is something that you need to attend to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I have a very quick question. Professor Preston, you talked about nurses. Again, feeding into this multidisciplinary approach, one thing I am really clear about is that we must have the best training in the world around those end-of-life conversations and end-of-life choice. Do you have any thoughts about what that training could look like or what the important components of that would be? I am interested to know.

Professor Preston: We have heard lots of evidence about training schemes around the world. To be honest, I think they are still developing, but we can look at the good elements of those and at what has and has not been evaluated. We can do it almost like action research, where you are learning as you go, and we can improve the training as we go.

Most people do not die under palliative care. This Bill will affect general care; it will affect specialist care, but not in palliative care. We need to train those people as well, because they will be having a lot of these conversations. We are doing that training now, which is about how we talk to someone in a compassionate way. How do you help people to understand that they can be involved in the decision making? What might the goals of care for you be, and what might a goals-of-care conversation look like?

We have lots of this training already. Palliative care has huge expertise in this with advanced care planning and the rest of it, so it is about getting some of that incorporated. It is not just about saying, “This is what an assisted death would look like. This is how it would process.” It must be more than that, and we need to help people to explore their end-of-life choices. How do you want to die? Do you want to die at home? Do you want the cat on the bed? It is about all those things that are really important to people, but we must have that conversation and explore them, and it is quite hard to get clinicians to have those conversations. There will be a special group of people who can manage this; they will need training and support.

[The Chair]

I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will suspend until 3 pm, which gives us six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

And he was having excellent palliative care, so what was in his mind, do you think? Why did he decide on that option?

Liz Reed: He knew he was dying. He was diagnosed in October 2022. Just to be clear, in the period before his health started to really deteriorate, he had a great time. He went fishing, he went to the beach—it was like an advert for Australia, how great his time was. He quit his job, he was with his young sons, and he had a lovely time. But his treatment stopped working. He had had every treatment and, even though he was on the pathway and had started the voluntary assisted dying process, he was still having immunotherapy. He wanted to live. His family wanted him to live. But he got to the point where he knew he was absolutely not going to live, and that it was a matter of time. He said that he was afraid not of dying, but of dying in an awful way. He was worried his lungs were filling up with fluid. He thought he might have a heart attack. He was afraid of that happening; he was not afraid of dying. He was not depressed but he knew what was coming. He felt, in his own words, “I’m just sitting here waiting to die.”

He had had experience of a friend whose wife had died, and she got so bad that her young son could not visit her any more because it was too frightening for him. My brother’s children will remember who he was: this big, 6-foot-6, rugby-playing, fun dad. He got to choose: “Actually, I’m ill enough, I’m frightened of what might come down, which I know is going to happen anyway, and I choose now.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you to the three of you for coming here this afternoon and telling your stories. I know how hard it is to tell your story over and over again. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that we have had a lot of talk this week about amendments, clauses and various other technical details, but this is the reality of the subject. Thank you so much for sharing your stories.

Liz and Julie, I am interested to know whether you think any aspects of the processes that you went through in Australia and in Spain could have been done better or improved. Is there anything from your experiences that we could learn from to enhance what we are trying to do here?

I also have a question for all three of you—and Pat, goodness me, to come here and tell your story after everything you have been through is unbelievably brave, so thank you. What impact did these different types of death have on your grief and on bereavement? We are talking about different types of death, so I think it will be helpful to think what that looks like for people.

Julie Thienpont: It is a very good question, because I think it did impact my grief. There is not anything that I would change, for definite, about that, but I think I mentioned that I had not tried to talk Guy out of it the first time around, but I did say, “Don’t be so hasty, because you’re not as sick as you could be.” He was still getting up and dressed every day and managing pain, so we had that discussion. On the only day that I ever knew him to stay in bed a little bit longer, I knew he was thinking about phoning to say that he was ready, and he called me to him and said, “Come and sit with me. I want to ask you two things.” The main one relevant to this is: “Don’t try and talk me out of it this time. I’ve made the decision. Don’t try and talk me out of it, because I don’t want you to be impacted in that way.” The second one was to “be strong”.

Both those things have impacted my grief, because I was so strong for 12 whole months and I just thought, “Yes, we’ve gone through that. It’s been great, and”—not “great”. Sorry, I am using the wrong terminology, but for me, it was so good to know that he died so peacefully and he was at peace with himself. That happened and I thought, “Right, now I’ve got to do the ‘be strong’ bit,” so I did that. I did want to talk him out of it again, but I did not, and I was very strong, and then all of a sudden, one day, grief did start to creep in, obviously. Suddenly I thought, “Hang on, he’s not coming back.” That is a normal grieving process, but it held off a little while.

The pathway that the grief I experienced took was that every day I had a different memory of us sitting somewhere, being somewhere or doing something. During the last months that we had together, knowing that he was going to die—sorry to sound like a bit of a romantic—our love intensified so much. You know that everything you do, it is probably going to be the last time you do it. It is almost like an unbreakable bond between you: you are both in this situation together and you are going to get through it, you are going to be strong, and you are going to be there for each other. I think that carried me so far, because those four months that he lived were the best four months, in the sense of our closeness and how supportive and caring we were for each other. It makes me smile now. When I think of his passing, I smile. Yes, I do get upset and I miss him a big lot, but I smile because everything worked out the way he wanted it to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you so much.

Pat Malone: My experience with my father was entirely different. My daughter, who was seven at the time, reminded me recently, when I was putting my thoughts together for this, that in his last weeks she had visited him, and I had taken her into a side room and told her not to expect to see the grandpa that she knew, because he was very, very ill and he did not look anything like she would expect. She said she was very thankful that I did that, because she was stunned and shocked when she saw him. He was like a 1,000-year-old corpse, he was moving, and his eyes were yellow, and that is how she remembers him—she does not remember any of the good times. My sister, who lived close by, was with him most of the time, and she just sat by his bed and prayed for his heart to stop.

We were all shell-shocked when he did finally die. As I say, that informed the decisions that were made about suicide by my sister and brother. Had he been a farm animal, we would have been prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering, but he was a man so he was not entitled to that sort of consideration. I remember him in that horrible ward breathing his last. The only time he moved in the last days was to cough up blood. For a man who had asked to be relieved of that burden, who had asked for an act of mercy, a week before, and it had been denied him—I cannot understand how anybody would deny a dying man a deliverance.

When my brother died, he and my sister-in-law had been together since they were 11 years old. He was only 53, so they had already known each other for 40 years. She had shared his suffering while he was being driven around the country looking for diagnoses and, ultimately, looking for doctors who would help him commit suicide. His weight had gone from 18 stone to 8 stone, and he was bright yellow as well. He was suffering all the time and she was suffering with him. She was relieved as well as grieving when he actually died—and then the police were at the door. The investigation went on until his inquest eight months later. The police were as helpful and sensitive as they could possibly be. Vicky got the impression that they wanted her to give the wrong answer—when they said, “Did you know what he was going to do?” she said, “Yes, I did”; to “Could you have stopped him?” she said, “Yes, he was weak as a kitten”; and to “Could you have resuscitated him?” she said “Yes,” because she had had some nursing training, and so on—and with every answer they just collapsed a little bit more.

Ultimately, at the inquest there was an anomaly in his suicide note. It was written in two different colours of ink, and the police investigated whether it could have been written at different times, possibly by different people. Giving evidence at his inquest, the police said that they thought his pen had run out—there was a squiggle at the top where it changed from black to blue—and they said that they were not proceeding with any idea that there had been positive involvement in his suicide.

I have a note of the transcript of what the coroner said, which reads: “I don’t want to make any more of this than I absolutely have to. I simply record therefore that Michael Malone took his own life. He did so quite deliberately and having made appropriate preparations, and so it’s not a case of my saying that he did so while the balance of his mind was disturbed, because it clearly was not. It was a decision that he took and I have every sympathy with that decision in so far as a coroner is allowed to say that.”

The police were very sympathetic. The coroner was very sympathetic. Danny Kruger is very sympathetic. But sympathy only goes so far, and I am glad that this Committee is now looking at exactly the people who matter first in this issue, who cannot be here to talk for themselves.

Liz Reed: In answer to the first point, about anything we would change or do differently, I think actually my brother’s case was dealt with really well and there were checks and balances along the whole way: “Does he meet the eligibility criteria?”—obviously—“but also, does he want to?” His wife was involved in the process with him, and he was checked constantly. A doctor administered for him, and he had met him already. He knew him and had a rapport with him. He had a few jokes with him at the end. So from that perspective, I do not think so. It is slightly different in Australia, in that it does not have to have a High Court judge, so the process feels a bit more streamlined than it is here, and maybe the access would be slightly different because of that.

In terms of the grief, I think anyone that knows someone who has been through a terminal illness knows that there is a level of anticipatory grief that comes with that—the waking up every morning thinking, “Has it been tonight? What happens next? What’s today?” Because when someone is in the final stages of their life, which my brother was, there is always something every day: “Oh, he’s got to have fluid drained from his heart today,” or, “Oh, this has happened.” There is always something, so that grief starts coming on before the person has even died.

The day my brother died we sat outside in the courtyard and had a glass of champagne. He chose a Bob Dylan song that he wanted to die to. It was extremely peaceful. It was seconds. And he got to say all the things, have all the conversations, speak to our parents—that sort of real American “closure”. That is what he got, and we were not sitting around thinking, “I wish I’d said this. I missed it,” or, “I was off doing something with the kids.” We were all there: my mum, my dad, me, his wife. We sat there and held his hand—and what a gift.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Thank you all for coming today and for sharing these really personal recollections. I have one question, but to both Liz and Julie, if that is okay. According to the notes that I have here—apologies if I have got this wrong—in both your brother’s situation and your husband’s situation, it was administered by the doctor. The Bill proposes that the person who has made the choice about ending their life should self-administer a solution. I am really sorry if this causes you any distress, but, on reflection, do you think that a self-administration regime would have made a difference?

Liz Reed: I do not think so, no. I do not think it would have changed his mind. I am someone who is real squeamish, so I probably would not want to, because of how I feel about all that kind of stuff, but it would not have changed anything for him—no, absolutely not. But I think there is a comfort in having a doctor there administering that, “This is going to go as it should,” and there is a calm that comes with that.

Julie Thienpont: Guy being intensely private, as I mentioned before, he would have preferred less people around him at the time. There were two nurses, the family doctor and the administering doctor. They prepared the scene and put the drips in—they had to put one in each arm—and they had to be there in order to witness the whole thing. He would have preferred to have been able to do it himself, but I do not think the fact that it was administered by somebody else impacted in a negative way for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

Q Julie, you said that you got to a point where Guy said to you that he had made his mind up. Had he made his mind up after conversations with doctors about what his options were?

Julie Thienpont: No. He made up his mind long before he was even sick. He felt that his mother had quite a traumatic passing, and said that she expressed a view that, had it been an option, she would have taken it. He had said from then, “That is the way I want to die. I want to die that way. I don’t want to be lingering in a bed, whether I am in pain or not. I don’t want that to happen.” That may not be something that I would choose, but that was his absolute choice—I have no doubt whatsoever. He said that to the team who had been looking after him when he first broached the subject, and I think they first of all thought he was not terribly serious. Then, when they realised he was, he said, “It’s my life, it’s my death—I want to choose.” I think that is what it is all about: allowing people that option to choose.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I wonder if you have been on your own journeys around your personal views on assisted dying and choice at the end of life. I have spoken to lots and lots of people about this, and anybody who has had experiences similar to yours are very clear that the law needs to change. People who have not been as close to this issue as you have often hold a different view.

Prior to your personal experience, you might have had a different view or friends and family who had different views. For me, speaking to people who have had the experiences you have had, it becomes very clear that we have problems with the law as it stands, or the lack of the law as it stands. Would anybody like to share their own journey about that?

Pat Malone: From my standpoint, I did not give it a lot of thought until it started impacting on the family. But I understood exactly why my sister and my brother committed suicide. I would hope that this Bill could be enacted when my time comes.

Liz Reed: I had not given it a huge amount of thought; I am relatively young. I suppose if I was asked at the time I would have said, “Yes, sounds fine,” but I think I had also grossly misunderstood what it would mean for someone to go to Dignitas. There is a flippant comment that goes around—I can remember my dad saying it: “Oh, I’ll just go to Switzerland.” It is just not that easy. People I know and have met, like Pat, have had family members go to Dignitas, and it is actually a deeply traumatising experience. People’s lives are cut much shorter, they cannot enjoy their time and so on. I absolutely agree that I had not given it much thought.

I remember, on the day my brother died, getting back to where we were staying; I sat there and thought, “What would have happened to him?” I wrote to my MP, to say, “Hello, I am just wondering what would have happened, out of interest.” That is how I got involved. Had he been here, what would have happened to him and how long would he have had to limp on? You hear enough stories of people begging to die at the end of their lives, and I am really thankful that he did not have to.

[The Chair]

May I offer all three of you the collective condolences of everybody on the Committee? I thank you for your bravery in attending today and for speaking to us. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I take that on board fully, so thank you for those helpful comments. In terms of capacity assessment, point 12 in the feedback and the written evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists mentions having multiple opportunities to assess capacity. To provide reassurance on that, those are in the Bill—I think there are four or five opportunities to assess capacity.

My question relates to point 15 in your written evidence, around the Human Tissue Authority. This is a model I looked at in terms of the decision making on coercion and capacity around people involved in organ donation. Can you tell me a little about that, and whether you think that there are parallels? It is a very serious decision, so we are in that territory. This is about what that looks like and what the role of psychiatrists is. We have talked a little about this already, but if we were to take this multidisciplinary approach, which I think is really powerful, what should the role of psychiatrists be?

Dr Price: On the role of an oversight group, one of the risks with individual practitioners doing these sorts of assessments is that they may do it once or twice in their career. What we know is likely to happen is that a smaller number of practitioners will do lots of assessments and build up individual expertise. However, it might be that a particular practitioner does this only for a patient who they know, or only a few times. Therefore, in terms of building up through repetition the sort of expertise that somebody such as me might have in the mental healthcare of an older person—thousands of patients over a couple of decades—an external group that understands the standards and the process should be able to scrutinise things at the time.

There are a number of bodies that do that not just for organ donation, but across lots of different services. We have them for liaison psychiatry, and they might have them for electroconvulsive therapy services, for example. They are not extraordinary or unusual, but they ensure that there is some consistency and reliability and that the assessments are of a standard. Scrutinising assessments after somebody has completed the process is useful for everybody who comes afterwards; it may not ensure that the quality was there for that individual. That would be the rationale for that sort of approach. Forgive me, but would you ask me the second part of your question again?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I think you have answered it, but it was whether there was any specific detail about the Human Tissue Authority, how it operates and what that looks like.

Dr Price: I do not have lots of individual experience with that group, because I do not work within a specific service. But it is an example of a model that is in operation, and hopefully I have described the sorts of characteristics and why they are there.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q My question is directed to Dr Mulholland. Thank you to the Royal College of General Practitioners for the helpful written evidence. I want to pick up on something in it, which is summarised in paragraph 6 but gone into in more detail in paragraph 7, and that is around the refusal of practitioners to engage in the assisted dying process. I note the wording that has been used by the Royal College, which is that GPs and any other healthcare professionals can refuse “on any ground”. That is distinct from the Abortion Act 1967, which in section 4(1) sets out that it can be a conscientious objection. Can you explain why you have decided to take what appears to be a broader expansion of that definition, and why you have chosen that particular wording?

Dr Mulholland: We are aware that we have a range of views in RCGP across general practitioners. Some of them have very strong views for or against based on moral grounds, and some of those are based on religious grounds—traditional conscientious objection grounds. But others do not want to take part in assisted dying just because they do not want to; they do not feel it is part of what being a GP is, or part of what they trained for.

In discussion with colleagues today, someone shared with me that for 35 years they have spent their time trying to extend the life of patients—that has been our role—and to help them towards the end of life. It is a philosophical change if they start to think about whether the patient’s life should end earlier. There are some colleagues who may decide that for those reasons, they do not want to take part in this. There will be others who very definitely do. We have that range, so we feel that a doctor or a health professional should have the right not to take part on any ground, and that should be protected—they should not feel the obligation to do something that they do not feel is within their wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I will stay in the same territory, if I can. The Bill includes, very clearly, an opt-in model for doctors. I took that from the BMA, which was very clear on that, and I think it is very important. My slight concern, on which I would like you to expand, is about the removal of assisted dying from the holistic approach to end-of-life care and conversations that GPs have all the time—as do other healthcare professionals, including nurses, as we have heard this week. Where this works well in other jurisdictions is where it is integrated and where we talk about palliative care, we talk about decision making and we talk about choices. I would appreciate your thoughts on that concern.

On capacity, just to reflect on the previous panel, my view is that psychiatric assessment would not be necessary in every case. We have heard from three families this afternoon; we can probably all agree that there was a clear wish from those individuals that this was the choice they wanted to make. I agree with the colleague who said that there will be a percentage of people; that is why I think referral to a psychiatrist is important in those cases. Have you any more thoughts on that, Dr Mulholland?

Dr Mulholland: As GPs, yes, holistic care is what we do—whole-person, biopsychosocial care. If we got into an end-of-life discussion with a patient and they expressed a wish to go through a route of assisted dying, should that be legal, that might still be part of a discussion that we would have with them. It is the active part of the process. The BMA referred to the word “refer”—referring to a colleague, for those who did not want to do it. We agree that signposting is a better process.

We would not want to be out of the patient’s life. It is very difficult to be out of a patient’s life, but it may be that we are not part of that particular aspect of their care. It is the same when we refer to surgeons and hospitals; they have an episode of care elsewhere. This would be another episode that someone might be undertaking for that person. We will still have the families that we are part of; we will still be caring for them as well. We do not see them leaving general practice or general practitioners, but the assisted dying part of their health journey, or death journey, would perhaps be outside some people’s experience or expertise. You would need experts and people trained in it to be doing it, and not necessarily every GP.

Dr Price: No matter what somebody’s reason is for entering the process or what the outcome is, we are very clear that anybody should be able to access really good evidence-based care so that this should not in any way derail, deflect or make people not think about really good care. People should get really thorough assessments, have the right professionals involved in their care and have treatment where they need it and would benefit from it. All the quality that we have and all the guidelines that we work to should still be adhered to. We should still be providing all of the other good-quality care that we can. It is important not to bypass that and not to take shortcuts because they have made that decision.

[The Chair]

There are three people left who want to ask questions, so can I beg for brevity?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. I take on board people’s comments. There’s no two ways about it; this is a considerable amount of work for members of the Bill Committee to undertake. As has been alluded to, there are a wide range of amendments being proposed. The job of the Committee is to take evidence, look at those amendments, discuss and debate them, and then vote accordingly. That is the process that we are all here to undertake.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Let us start.

Clause 1

Assisted dying

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment provides that only persons in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “provided” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment limits the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales.

Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(3) The steps to be taken under sections 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken—

(a) when the terminally ill person is in England or Wales, and

(b) in the case of the steps under sections 7 and 8, by persons in England or Wales.”

This amendment provides that steps under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken by and in respect of persons in England or Wales.

Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to cases where the person is in England or Wales.

Amendment 193, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—

“(ca) is in England and Wales,”.

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 178, provides that the coordinating doctor must ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, in this very important stage in the consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

We are discussing assisted dying for terminally ill adults who have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and who have not been subjected to coercion or pressure from anybody else to do so. These are very serious matters and deserve serious consideration, which is why I was determined that this Bill should have an unprecedented level of scrutiny. We have heard from a range of over 50 witnesses with differing views on the Bill and have received written evidence from many, many more.

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in such a thoughtful and constructive way. It has been widely remarked—and I wholeheartedly agree—that the Second Reading debate on 29 November last year, when the House approved the principle of the Bill by a majority of 55, showed Parliament at its best. I hope and believe that this Committee, as it goes through the Bill line by line, will do so in the same considered, respectful and measured manner.

[Danny Kruger]

I completely endorse that last point made by the hon. Lady. Does she remember how many Members on Second Reading—including, I think, herself—made reference to the judicial stage of the process and specifically to the High Court judge? Over 60 colleagues have stated on the record that they voted for the Bill on Second Reading because of that safeguard. Does she acknowledge that point?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do acknowledge that point—absolutely, as I have acknowledged, the role of a High Court judge is really important in this process. That role will remain with the amendment I have tabled. It will also take account of the very clear evidence we received during the oral evidence sessions from psychiatrists, social workers and other professionals who feel that they have an important role to play in this process. Indeed, I heard the hon. Gentleman say he agreed with that on the radio this morning. It is very important that we hear from those experts. There is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they have to say.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that they should keep to the amendments being debated.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Ms McVey.

I hope and believe that the Committee will take the same considered, respectful approach that we have taken previously. We have been asked by the House to look at where the Bill can be improved and to amend it, so that Parliament can be presented with a piece of legislation that is robust and workable in order to meet the objectives it is designed to achieve. Most—if not all—the amendments tabled in my name, have been drafted with the help of parliamentary counsel and officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice. The Government are committed to making the Bill workable and operable, while maintaining a position of neutrality.

I am grateful for the tremendous hard work that has gone into this to make a well-drafted Bill even better. I know the Ministers on the Committee, although remaining neutral, will be here to explain, where necessary, why some drafting amendments were needed to meet their duty to the statute book. There is an old adage that says too many cooks spoil the broth. That may not exactly be parliamentary language, but we will have to bear it in mind as we go along. Over 300 amendments have been tabled—most of them with the intention of improving and strengthening the Bill. I thank all MPs, whether members of the Committee or not, for the time and effort they have put in.

We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and coherence of the Bill as a whole, so it is evident that we will not be able to accept all amendments. Indeed, we may find ourselves rejecting amendments that sound entirely reasonable in themselves and that undoubtedly come from a good place, but that are perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the drafting. Others might have unintended consequences or create a degree of ambiguity or uncertainty that could undermine the legal authority of the legislation. That might be very good for the pockets of lawyers, but it does not make for good law.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the Member that although a brief introduction is acceptable, we should be talking to the amendments in this group.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely, Ms McVey—thank you for allowing me to make some introductory comments.

Amendments 178 to 180, 182 and 193 simply clarify that only persons in England and Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Act, and only medical practitioners in England and Wales can carry out the required roles at each stage of the process. Hopefully, this is a nice straightforward one to get us started.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for her introductory comments. The Government will continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not hold a position on assisted dying. I want to make it clear that I, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, are speaking in Committee not as Members of Parliament, but as Government Ministers responsible for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is effective, legally robust and workable.

To that end, we have been working closely with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and, where changes have been mutually agreed on by herself and the Government, we will offer a technical, factual explanation for the amendments. Therefore, I will not be offering up a Government view on the merits of any proposed changes put forward by other Members, but I will make brief remarks on an amendment’s legal and practical impact to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Yes, that is exactly what I am aiming to do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There is a wide variety of views on this, but in actual fact, much as I do not wish to question Professor Sir Chris Whitty, and I acknowledge his seniority as the chief medical officer, he was very much the outlier on this. Everybody else who gave evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act to determine someone’s capability to make this decision for themselves cast doubt on the idea that the Mental Capacity Act was the right way of doing it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is not quite accurate. I think we did have other witnesses who absolutely said that they had confidence in the Mental Capacity Act, and I will speak about them in this debate.

[Sarah Olney]

I look forward to the hon. Lady’s further comments, but as I said, the psychiatrists were very clear that they did not believe that this was a sufficient safeguard, and we should acknowledge that.

I was unable to put my question to Alex Ruck Keene KC during the oral evidence session, but he kindly agreed to give further evidence in writing in response to a letter I sent to him later that day. That exchange of letters has been published as written evidence. It was his position that, in actual fact, Professor Sir Chris Whitty misinterpreted the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence. There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act that states that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have. Mr Ruck Keene’s view is that that was the common law prior to the Mental Capacity Act coming into force, whereas in actual fact the Mental Capacity Act does not require that the more serious the decision, the more capacity someone needs to be judged to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have concerns about public confidence in the Bill without that additional safeguard, as this is such a consequential decision, but of course any advance directive would be predicated on having gone through those two stages first before capacity is lost. I feel that on this occasion additional tightening is necessary so that the public can be confident that a robust process has been gone through.

The MCA is a tried and tested piece of legislation used by practitioners up and down the country. The hon. Member for Stroud uses it every day in his practice; I have to say that I did not, but I was not consenting patients for surgery every day. Every time I did so, however, I had those conversations. Capacity lies on a spectrum: if I am doing major abdominal surgery, the level of capacity required to make a decision will be much greater than if I am removing a small bump or lump on an arm.

As well as having been tried and tested by medical practitioners, the MCA has been tested in the courts, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. It has been right up to the highest court in this land, it has been robustly tested and it has been found to be good legislation. The risk we now face is that it will be replaced not only with a new legal concept, but with an entirely different process for assessing capacity in this setting. Although there may be good intentions to improve the system, that will only add to the folly of it and overcomplicate the issue.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am sorry that it has taken me a while to find the relevant provision of the Bill. The discussion on the advance directive is a really interesting one, and I am glad that we are having it. Is the hon. Member reassured that clause 18(4) is very clear that on the day that assistance is provided to a patient, a doctor has to assess once again their capacity to make the decision to end their own life, check again that there is a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and indeed check everything again on the day, including capacity? I believe that that will negate the issue around the advance directive.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a reasonable point. I agree with her on many issues, but on this issue I have some reservations. Clause 18(4) says:

“The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided…has capacity…has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Of course, under the wording of section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, that decision can be made at an earlier time and deemed to have currency, once capacity has been lost, for its enactment at a later date. I think that there could be a minor tightening of the wording or reassurances from Government to address that, but it is an important point to raise and air.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is one of the additional safeguards in the Bill. This Bill has more in-built safeguards than any similar piece of legislation across the world. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: when a doctor has concerns about somebody’s mental state, they can escalate the case and seek further, specialist opinion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will make some progress, if I may, because I think I have indulged your patience for far too long, Ms McVey.

I am cautious about introducing this new test. I may not have persuaded everyone, but I have set out my reasons. We risk making the system overcomplicated. We would move away from the well-established mechanism under the Mental Capacity Act and into tiger country, with untried and untested systems that the courts have not considered, which will inevitably lead to challenge. There is no need to do that, because we already have robust mechanisms in place and doing so will merely lead to ambiguity and potential complications.

This is not me reaching this conclusion in isolation. Of course, there will always be voices on different sides of the debate, and we can frame the evidence we have heard to favour one set of arguments over another. However, I am significantly persuaded by the chief medical officer, given his wide experience as not just a clinician but a public policymaker. In his evidence to the Committee on 28 January, he said:

“It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that,”

—he means moving away from the Mental Capacity Act—

“given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q14.]

It is that foundation that we are building on, and it is central to how these things operate in practice.

Although I understand the position of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I have a degree of sympathy with those who support the amendments, I invite them to reflect, in the time we have left for this debate, on whether the amendments achieve their stated aim. Do they make the Bill better or do they make it more complicated and convoluted? I say that they make it more convoluted and that, despite the best of intentions, they should not be supported.

[Daniel Francis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge knows I am an ally on many of these issues, but I will humbly disagree with her on some matters. I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but like many people here I speak from lived experience. I speak as the parent of a learning-disabled child, so I see the kinds of decisions that have to be made day to day, and the kinds of arguments and conversations that have to be had with people who presume that my child has more or less capacity than she has. Believe me, that is a constant, daily battle for me and my wife.

My daughter has 12 words and a severe sight impairment, which makes it very difficult for her to make some of her decisions, as well as other complexities—predominantly her cerebral palsy, which caused a brain injury at birth. Therefore, in my own way, although I am not a lawyer or a doctor, I have become a bit of an expert on some of the capacity issues that people encounter day by day. This morning, as I do most mornings, I read to her the three choices for her breakfast. I give her a bit of time to think about them and then I repeat them. We get yes or no to those three choices, and that is the choice she makes. Because of her severe sight impairment, when I put those three options in front of her, I have to lift them up in front of my face so that she can see them; if I put them much lower down, she would not be able to see them and make a choice. She would be able to make the choice through pointing if it was within a certain range.

I have doctors calling my wife and me all the time, asking to have a conversation with my daughter, despite their having read the notes saying that she is an 11-year-old with 12 words and a severe sight impairment. I therefore query—I will refer to some of the oral evidence in a moment—how well some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act are currently being carried out. Equally, I deal with people who suggest that she has a greater level of capacity than she does.

I accept—I have had this conversation with the hon. Member for Spen Valley on a number of occasions—that this legislation would not be applicable to my daughter. However, we heard in evidence from Mencap that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities in this country are not in the same position. They are living their day-to-day lives, living in supported accommodation and making the kinds of decision we have discussed in this debate, such as buying coffee and going to the bank.

As a result of my 20 years as a councillor, and in the last 11 years since our children were born, I have become involved with a number of local disability charities, and I know the decisions that people make when their child is at that transition age. They are trying to understand the complexity of taking a power of attorney for a child, as well as other decision-making issues. I spend a lot of time with parents who do not put those measures in place, because they do not understand the complexity in terms of age. We could therefore have a young adult relying on doctors who do not know them and on a judge—I have not seen an amendment on that issue, so I am still talking about a judge—to make a decision about capacity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not particularly have a question to ask my hon. Friend, but I want to pay tribute to him for engaging so positively with the scrutiny of the Bill and for the very personal experience he has shared with the Committee. I reassure him that I will do everything I can to work with him, as I have so far through this process, because his fears are real, and I hear them. We have a job to do through the Bill to solve the problems that exist for people who are dying, but we do not want to create other problems. I am happy to continue to work with him to ensure that we address as much of that as we can through the Committee.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the Member in charge for her comments. That is the conversation we had when she invited me to join the Committee, and we will continue to have conversations as amendments come forward.

My concern is about some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, which was not written for these scenarios, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park talked in particular about the statutory principles in it. I am not an expert on these issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud behind me is more of an expert on some of them. However, there is no obligation in the code of practice under the Act to consult carers involved in a person’s life. The code says:

“if it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.

Therefore, given the way the Act and the code of practice are worded, there is no obligation in the scenarios I am discussing.

There is another issue I was going to raise before I took that intervention. Mencap does considerable hard work. At my local branch, there are many people whose parents are in their 70s and 80s and have cared for their child all their life. I am not being rude, but their child, who is in their 40s or 50s, does feel like a burden to their parents. They know the obligation their parents have to care for them for their whole life. I ask Members to consider what the Mental Capacity Act says: those adults are at a level of capacity to make decisions, but they have been supported in those decisions all their lives and do not—

--- Later in debate ---

“I really liked what you said yesterday; we need gold standard training. The thought yesterday about what happens with capacity made me think straight away about cases in the last few months where we, as a palliative care team, thought that someone had capacity, and the other team did not.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 194, Q254.]

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend cites some interesting observations from the oral evidence, and I welcome his doing so. I draw his attention to my amendments 186 and 198, which look at the training. This is something I feel passionately about. If the Bill were to pass, having gold standard training would be vital, as I said during that sitting. I will do whatever I can to embed that in the Bill, and I will certainly consider what that will look like in the instances that we are discussing.

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome that commitment and look forward to that discussion in due course.

Dr Hussain went on to say:

“Ultimately, I do not think the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding training are fit for purpose.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q260.]

Professor Owen said:

“That conveys questionable confidence in the consent processes, of which mental capacity is part, in relation to the decision to end one’s life. It is significant evidence about the confidence that is out there among experienced practitioners.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 228, Q290.]

Dr Price said:

“I…refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 268, Q349.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention helps me to explain my point more clearly, which is that the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park builds on the terms of the Mental Capacity Act. It recognises the value of the terms, which have been well established in case law through the MCA—the ability to understand, use and weigh the relevant information.

The key difference is the word “fully”. The case law around the MCA allows for somebody to be deemed capacitous even though their judgment might be impaired. What is proposed in the new clause is the closing of that lacuna, so that it would not be possible for someone to get an assisted death if their judgment was impaired. That is the key difference.

It is also important to exclude the MCA because of the thicket of complications that it would entail. We have heard about the importance of simplification. A much simpler and better way to do the entirely novel thing that we are proposing, which is to authorise assisted suicide by the state, is to have a new definition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady does not like my terminology.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do struggle with that terminology. This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved. It is the person making an autonomous decision based on their choice at the end of life. I will say on the record that the term “suicide” is not accurate for the cases we are talking about. The people we are dealing with are not suicidal. They very much want to live; they do not want to die, but they are dying. It is important that we have that on the record.

[Danny Kruger]

I think it is totally valid for us to have this argument about terminology periodically. I will repeat the point that we have made before, which is that we are actually amending the Suicide Act 1961—or rather, we are disapplying that Act—in the process set out in the hon. Lady’s Bill. There is no getting away from the fact that we are talking about assisting suicide. I am afraid that I will continue to use the term, and I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for that.

I am arguing that the MCA is a complicating factor in the process that is being proposed for the Bill; it makes things much more difficult and complicated. The point has already been made—the hon. Member for Richmond Park put it very well—that, in the case for the MCA, a lot of weight is being put on the evidence from Sir Chris Whitty, suggesting that the MCA works very well. I point out that Sir Chris made a significant mistake in his evidence, when he said that

“the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q3.]

There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act. Of course, we would hope that doctors would take a serious decision more seriously than a trivial one, but there is no such requirement. I cite Alex Ruck Keene KC, who wrote to the hon. Member for Richmond Park after his evidence session; with the greatest of respect to Chris Whitty, the fact that he got that wrong does not inspire confidence in his comments that the Mental Capacity Act is well understood by doctors throughout the country. I very much echo that. We have had so much evidence on how the Mental Capacity Act does not work well in practice that I think it was regrettable for the chief medical to have made the Panglossian observation that every doctor interprets it in exactly the same way and it works perfectly everywhere.

The Mental Capacity Act does not detect coercion. We will discuss coercion more in subsequent debates, but that Act is certainly not the safeguard against it. Professor House made some comments to us about Down’s syndrome and about diagnostic overshadowing. That is a very important concept. I am afraid to say that it is frequently the case, regarding people with severe disabilities, that capacity—or, indeed, incapacity—is not correctly observed because the medical professional will not see beyond the more presenting of their conditions. Observing capacity in someone who does have disabilities is often mistaken; it is harder than it is regarding other people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The simple answer is yes, I do. I think it is a causatively different decision. In fact, this whole Bill entails causative differences between those decisions. I will come to that point more in a moment.

Professor Owen made an important point to us regarding capacity. He said:

“You might be talking about a kind of cognitive impairment that has not reached the threshold for a diagnosis of dementia; you might be talking about a kind of mood problem or an anxiety problem that is sub-clinical; or you might be talking about a level of intelligence that is not clinically a learning disability.”

He talked about

“pressure within a family, let us say, which is often not malign in its intentions, but it exists.”

and about situations

“where there is an impairment and also an interpersonal pressure”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 234, Q297.]

Although we are not talking at this point explicitly about coercion and family pressure, the issues around capacity and coercion are nevertheless intertwined, and it is often very difficult for doctors to determine what is really going on. Again, the challenges around capacity are intense.

The point has been made by hon. Members that under clause 9(3)(b), if the second doctor in the process is in doubt about capacity, they “may” refer the person to a psychiatrist, but the clause in fact refers to “a registered medical practitioner” who “has experience of” the assessment of capacity—so not a psychiatrist, but just someone who has experience, whatever that means, of the assessment of capacity. It is not totally obvious what that means. Amendment 365 has been tabled overnight by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) which would mean that both the first and second doctor, and indeed the court, if we are allowed to have a court process, “must”—not “may”— refer the person to a psychiatrist. That is not just if they are concerned about capacity, by the way. The court, or whoever it is, must conclude that there is no

“impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder or other condition”.

I very much welcome that amendment and I hope that we will pass that in due course.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point about clause 9(3)(b), as I think was mentioned earlier, an amendment has been tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper)—an amendment that I would support and I hope the Committee will—that would indeed turn the “may” to a “must”, so that there has to be a referral to a psychiatrist if there is any doubt from either of those doctors.

[Danny Kruger]

That is excellent news. For the first time so far in the course of this debate, we have a strengthening of the Bill from the hon. Member. That is great news—we can chalk that up as a victory, and as good sense breaking out. I am grateful for that. Let’s see what more we can achieve.

The point that I want to make is that we are in the foothills of understanding the effects of depression, cognitive impairment and social pressure on the decision to end life. That is a point made strongly by a series of witnesses to us in both oral and written evidence: we are still very much in the early stages of understanding how capacity interacts with mental illness, disability and coercion. Then, into the mists of vagueness, we are proposing to insert this single clunking, clumsy question: “Is there evidence of incapacity?” I strongly suggest that the abuse of the Mental Capacity Act that we are seeing here is not a way of simplifying the process of ensuring that there are a small number of strong safeguards; it is a great complication of the process and introduces more complexity, as we see from the many additional things that clinicians should consider. That is in direct contradiction to the principle of the Mental Capacity Act, which simply asks the question: “Is there capacity?”

The point has been made that there is more to the Mental Capacity Act than simply the question of capacity. There are concepts of best interests and supporting decision making. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggested, it is a cumulative process. The Mental Capacity Act entails not only the question of capacity but the consideration of best interests and whether we are supporting the decision making of an individual. I am not sure how those terms apply in a situation of assisted dying. It is not similar or comparable to the sorts of decisions that the MCA is intended to apply to.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

We are trying to avoid suffering, pain and bad deaths. We all share that view. Indeed, later amendments look explicitly at the purpose of an assisted death and the question of the avoidance of pain. I am simply making the important distinction between the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision to administer fatal drugs, which, as I say, are qualitatively different—different in principle and different in practice.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

To build on the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, this is the heart of the issue. You are right that they are slightly different things.

[The Chair]

Ahem.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Sorry, Sir Roger. The hon. Member is correct. It gets to the heart of whether we think this is the right thing to do. The Bill Committee’s job is to put that decision back to the House. It is not for us to decide today; it is for us to have the discussion about how we can improve the Bill and send it back to the House.

The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that it gets to the heart of the issue. I think dying people should be given that choice. In the same way that they are given the choice to have treatment withdrawn or the machine turned off, they should be given the choice to take control and to have the autonomy and dignity that assisted death will provide.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady has expressed very well her whole purpose for the Bill. In a sense, all the debates we are having about safeguards, protections, process and eligibility are secondary to her purpose, which is to give autonomy to patients. One has to ask about the purpose of the safeguards, particularly the one on people having to administer the drugs themselves. In all jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide is legal, that is the option that people overwhelmingly opt for—I certainly would if I were in that situation.

The hon. Lady is right, and that is what she is trying to do: she simply wants the Bill to go through. I take strong issue with her implied point that our purpose here is simply to work out the Bill’s implementation. We are looking at each clause, line by line, to decide whether it is safe or not. As she said herself at the time, the decision on Second Reading was a vote in principle to continue the discussion, which is what we are doing now. We are closely and minutely examining whether every clause is safe.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, it is not an either/or. It is not just about passing legislation that improves choice and gives autonomy and dignity to dying people, and indeed fixes the current failings of the law as it stands, as we have discussed in great detail. It is about providing safeguards that make sure that is done safely, securely and robustly, and that address the issues and concerns we are discussing. It is not an either/or and it is important to make that distinction.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I have tabled an amendment to a later clause that talks specifically to that. The word “only” needs to be removed. We have seen this in Oregon, which I will come to later. We heard in the oral evidence that 60 women assessed to have capacity died because they had anorexia.

[Kim Leadbeater]

In respect of those numbers, it is important to be really clear that the vast majority of those circumstances were in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions that have a much broader set of eligibility criteria than the Bill. We are talking about a very small number of cases in jurisdictions with a similar set of criteria to ours. It is important to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but we are not here legislating on anorexia; we are here legislating on the option of assisted death. I am trying to understand where he is going with that argument. It genuinely does not make sense to me.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not think that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that this is about people with eating disorders or anorexia; he is asking about people who are terminally ill who stop eating and drinking. They do that as a course of action to essentially end their own lives. It does happen on a fairly regular basis. We have had testimonies from families who have watched loved ones essentially starve themselves to death. It is different from having an eating disorder or being anorexic.

[Naz Shah]

My understanding, when it concerns eating disorders and anorexia—let me get this right: are hon. Members trying to equate new clause 1 with that condition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I simply reiterate that this is a very dynamic Bill Committee; I believe that 362 amendments have been tabled. Given the Government’s focus on establishing the Bill’s implementability, the coherence of the statute, the legal dimensions and the complexity of what we are dealing with, we took the position that it was better to wait for the Bill to clear Committee stage before producing an impact assessment. To do otherwise could have involved a large amount of second-guessing based on radical changes that might well have come out of the Bill Committee. I reiterate the logic of that sequencing.

On the point about the established legal framework, which clinicians have been applying since 2007, “capacity” would still be used for other decisions about care and treatment.

I turn to amendment 202, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the advice of the Government. It ensures that the assessment of “capacity” is utilised by the assessing doctor, and corrects a typographical error in clause 9 to ensure that an assessment of capacity will apply consistently throughout the Bill. As I said earlier, how and whether the law on assisted dying should change is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee when considering potential changes put forward.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will try to keep my comments brief. It is excellent that we have had such a thorough debate on this particular issue, but I am also very conscious of time.

I will do the quick and easy bit first. As the Minister has just said, amendment 202 is to correct a typographical error in the initial drafting of the Bill—despite the high level of expertise involved in the initial drafting of the Bill, that one managed to sneak through. The amendment would simply change the word “capability” to “capacity”, to be consistent with the rest of the Bill.

I now come to amendments 34 to 47 and new clause 1. As we have discussed, those would replace the concept of “capacity”, which is based on the Mental Capacity Act, with a new concept of “ability”. I think that suggestion is coming from a good place and is made with good intention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park; I thank her for her positive engagement with the Bill. However, based on the oral evidence that we received, particularly from the chief medical officer and many other experts, the suggestion would seem unnecessary given that we already have—as has been discussed at length this afternoon—a very well established piece of legislation that is effective in this regard.

The primary purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is to promote and safeguard decision making within a legal framework. As the CMO and other colleagues have said, issues around mental capacity

“are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q3.]

That view was supported by Yogi Amin, an expert in Court of Protection work, human rights and civil liberties, who told us during the oral evidence sessions:

“It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]

[Sean Woodcock]

We all understand the evidence of the chief medical officer and why he and others, including Members here, prefer the use of the Mental Capacity Act. It is understood by doctors and it is used every day.

What this debate is fundamentally about is that assisted dying is not done every day. It is not something doctors are used to. As somebody who has said that she wants the toughest safeguards, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to understand that what those of us who have concerns about the Bill are saying is that this is unusual. It is a step into the dark.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is about making sure that the issue is not just about what doctors are used to, but that there is another safeguard to ensure that people are not being exploited. Does my hon. Friend understand that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do. I take my hon. Friend’s comments on board and I will come to address them. As other colleagues have established, it would seem nonsensical to try to introduce a brand new legislative framework rather than use an existing piece of legislation that has stood the test of time. Indeed, Professor Laura Hoyano, emeritus professor of law at the University of Oxford, who has worked in civil liberties, human rights and domestic abuse, said:

“It is interesting that a number of Members of Parliament who are practising physicians pointed out in the debate that they have to evaluate freedom of decision making and absence of coercion in many different medical contexts.”

She talked about the withdrawal of medical treatment, as others have this afternoon, and went on:

“It is considered to be a fundamental human right that lies at the heart of medical law that a patient has personal autonomy to decide what to do with their body and whether or not to accept medical treatment, provided that they have the capacity to do so...Doctors have to make those assessments all the time.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 227, Q289.]

In the light of that evidence, it would seem unnecessary to create a whole new legal framework around the new concept of ability.

However, although I think the Mental Capacity Act is the correct legal framework to use, I strongly agree with palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke when it comes to additional training on assessing capacity for the purposes of this Bill, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. She strongly encouraged us to give serious consideration to this matter, saying:

“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training from day one of medical school onwards.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]

The CMO also suggested that training on capacity, as has been discussed, may require some slight adjustment. He said:

“There is an absolute expectation within the Act, for example, that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have...That training should be generic, but may need some adaption.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30-31, Q3.]

I agree. As I have said, I think one of the best things about the Bill is the opportunity it gives us to develop gold-standard training around end-of-life care, end-of-life conversations and choice for terminally ill people. That should include training in assessing capacity specifically for the purposes of the Bill, for a decision that is clearly of such a high level of consequence and seriousness.

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says about training. I know we have separately discussed places in the Bill where we could replace the word “may” for “must” to make the safeguards stronger. However, I come back to the same points as I made to the Minister. The Mental Capacity Act code of practice, which I presume is what we will be relying on, says:

“If it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.

However, it does not say “must”, and for adults with learning disabilities particularly, that remains a principal concern. Chapter 2 of the code of practice says:

“It is important to do everything practical...to help a person make a decision for themselves before concluding that they lack capacity to do so.”

I know this is not my hon. Friend’s intention, but that is the wording that would lead a doctor to have to help somebody make this decision. My question is: how will we overcome that issue?

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is a point worth making, and something we will look at through the amendments that my hon. Friend has proposed. I am very happy to look at those, as I have already said, but the idea of creating a whole new concept of ability seems wholly unnecessary in the context of a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time for over 20 years.

I come back to training. Although the full details of the training programme that would accompany the Bill cannot be put on the face of the Bill, I have discussed the issue at length with officials in the Department of Health and I have included amendments to that effect. Amendments 186 and 198 specifically state that training must include assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person. Further comprehensive training will be included in regulations set out by the Secretary of State, and the chief medical officer is confident that that is the correct way to proceed.

Furthermore, as has been referred to, there are multiple opportunities within the process to assess capacity by a range of professionals. I have also tabled new clause 8, which would create a duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations relating to training. Within that, there would be a duty to consult not only the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is important, but persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity and whether persons have been coerced.

[Naz Shah]

To go back to the point about multiple opportunities and capacity, my understanding from this morning’s Guardian is that an amendment has been tabled—it was mentioned earlier; I do not know whether others have had sight of it, but I certainly have not—on potentially having a panel instead of a judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has just asked a question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley responded by saying that she would come back to it, but my concern is that we are looking at the clause now, and once we have discussed it there will be no going back to it. I am trying to understand at what stage in the process she will come back and fix it. If we are going to address it under clause 9, clause 8 or wherever, how will that impact on clause 1? How will it address the issues that we are debating right now?

[Kim Leadbeater]

At the moment, we are addressing the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act, but there are other amendments that will take on board some of my hon. Friend’s points, particularly about people with learning disabilities. I am very happy to look at that. I am working to table an amendment before the recess, to give the Committee an opportunity to look at it in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is right that that would provide another opportunity for assessment of capacity with the involvement of psychiatrists and social workers, who have said that that is their expertise and what they excel in, and who feel that they have a valuable role to play in the process.

[Naz Shah]

At what stage will we know how the amendments that my hon. Friend proposes have an impact on clause 1? If we make amendments later in the Bill, how will that have an impact on the amendments that we have discussed this morning, in particular in relation to capacity?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Clause 1 is very specifically about the Mental Capacity Act, on which we should get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other amendments can be tabled ahead of Report, but the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is a concept on which we will get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other things can be added to the Bill that would enhance other aspects, but the point that we have discussed this afternoon is about the fitness for purpose of the Act. There are different views on the Committee, which is understandable. I believe that using the well-established legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act, introducing gold-standard training and consulting experts in assessing capacity will mean that there is no need to develop a whole new framework around the concept of ability, particularly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I therefore do not support the amendments.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley used an arresting phrase this morning: he said that to abandon the Mental Capacity Act would take us “into tiger country”. The concept appeals greatly to me, but what I would say to him and other Committee members is that it is the Bill itself that takes us into tiger country. It is unprecedented, and this is very new territory for legislation in this country. That is the tiger country, right there. If we are going to let those tigers out into the wild, we need to ensure that the British public, and particularly the most vulnerable members of it, have the right protections. That is what the amendment seeks.

There was not a consensus among those who gave oral or written evidence that the Mental Capacity Act is a sufficient safeguard for the purpose proposed in the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his speech this morning, which illustrated vividly for all of us how the Mental Capacity Act is used in practice. I particularly thank him for his personal reflection.

Let me reiterate what the amendment seeks. The Bill proposes to judge mental capacity for a decision to request assisted dying in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There are elements of the Mental Capacity Act that are tried and tested, and should be retained in assessments of capacity in relation to this legislation, but as per the written evidence of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Capacity Act is not sufficient for the purposes of assisted dying, because it cannot distinguish between those who suffer from a mental disorder and those who do not. It needs to be adapted for the purposes of the Bill.

My amendment 34 would therefore substitute “capacity” with “ability” and reserve to the Secretary of State the power to define ability for the purposes of the Bill. To me, that is a pragmatic response. The debate in the Committee Room today reflects the lack of consensus among the experts who gave witness. That is why I think the matter is better resolved by those experts giving advice to the Secretary of the State, so the definition of ability can be expertly decided on.

The difference between choosing assisting dying and choosing to end treatment was a big topic of debate both this morning and this afternoon. It goes to the heart of the different approaches that people take towards the Bill. I support the observation from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that the difference is between dying of an illness itself, or dying of the effects of the approved substance, as laid out in the Bill. To me, that is a substantial and material difference, so our approach to establishing capacity should reflect that.

The hon. Member for Reigate made an important point about the difference between a passive and an active choice. That very much reflects what I am trying to achieve through the amendment, which would allow us to strengthen the safeguards around the assessment of capacity. Given that there was not a consensus, among the experts who gave evidence, on whether the Mental Capacity Act is sufficient for the purpose, the pragmatic step is to allow the amendment to create the conditions under which a stronger safeguard can be adopted if necessary.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the moment, we will leave it there.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure that we have voted on amendment 202.

[The Chair]

We will take it when we get to it. Thank you for raising that point, because this is a learning process for a lot of people. We decide on the amendment that is moved; we will then decide on any further amendments, if any Member wishes to propose them, in the order in which they appear in the Bill. In this case, that is not yet.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not believe that there is some enormous difference between the culture of Canada and that of the United Kingdom, but it is significant that people here currently think that it would be wrong to offer assisted dying to people who are homeless, while 10 years after the law was introduced in Canada, a quarter of people there do. That indicates that the law is itself a teacher, which is one of my great concerns about the Bill: that it encourages people to think that the lives of certain categories of citizen are of less value.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Did the polling ask people’s view on whether terminally ill homeless people should have access to assisted dying, or on whether it should be offered to homeless people just for being homeless? That would seem very strange.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady might well be right. I totally take that point. I dare say it is people who are homeless. I think the question put was, “Should those who are homeless simply be able to ask for assisted dying?” People in this country say no. In Canada, asked the same question, a quarter of people say yes. The effect of the law has been to institute this principle of assisted dying being an acceptable choice under any circumstances, which is indeed, I am afraid, what happens.

I will end with a powerful quote from Fazilet Hadi, who spoke to us representing disabled people. She said:

“This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 185, Q242.]

She said that the society the Bill will land in is the thing that needs to change, not the Bill. She thinks we need to change our society before we do anything like introducing assisted dying. I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Naz Shah]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend has listed certain categories of people, and we will come on to the definition of terminal illness. I am confident that, given the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, some of the groups of people she has talked about will not be included in its scope.

[Naz Shah]

Where does it specify that? I know we are going to debate that subject later, but right now there is nothing that gives me assurance that those people will be excluded. Unless there is an amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will support, the Bill, as drafted, would still apply to somebody if they decided not to carry on with treatment, or if they decided they did not want to take their insulin or other medication and that would lead to their death. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend so that she can explain how she is going to deal with that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will. Let me read from the Bill. The definition of “terminal illness” under the Bill is that

“the person has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

The conditions that my hon. Friend is describing can be reversed by treatment and are not inevitably progressive. We will come to that debate in due course, but that definition is crucial.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to differ on the wording that my hon. Friend just used. It actually makes my point. As it stands, if I were an insulin-dependent diabetic—and I have been so on three occasions, with my children— I could say that if I stopped taking that insulin, I would become terminally ill. In the Bill as it stands, and as it is drafted, I would meet the criteria.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend would not meet the criteria. She might be describing a condition that cannot be reversed, but it is the “inevitably progressive” part that we are talking about. Because it can be treated, it is not an

“inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition”.

[The Chair]

Order. A debate about the definition of “terminal illness” will come later in the Bill, and it might help us all if we were to swiftly move forward to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I particularly applaud his amendment’s aspiration to ensure that the doctors’ conversations are properly recorded.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Further to the comment from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, all of that will obviously be recorded on the patient’s medical records as well. The idea that it is not being recorded is just not correct.

[Danny Kruger]

The decisions will be recorded, but the conversations that the hon. Lady stipulates should take place under the Bill need further recording, in my view, with further evidence of what was discussed in order to ensure that the safeguards have been properly applied. I also point out that for the chief medical officer to effectively carry out the review under clause 34, they must have evidence available, not just a few schedules that have been signed off.

Likewise, I am glad to say that the opportunity remains for a legal appeal, in so far as we still have a judicial process, but I am concerned that the lack of any documentary evidence makes the application difficult for any external party or the Court of Appeal to review. Currently, there is a great paucity of information that the High Court judge considering the application can request. I think it is important that the High Court judge—or, indeed, the panel, if we move to that approach—should have access to a much fuller range of documentation to ensure that the process has been properly followed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

That is an important point. Obviously, case law becomes quite important in this. Supporting someone’s decision is very different from encouraging someone who was not in the place of wanting to go through with assisted dying. Again, these things do sometimes end up in the courts, because sometimes it can be a grey line. It is important that we have this protection. Right now, it is an offence to encourage someone to commit suicide, and we need to recognise that. That is the law right now.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The idea is that the Bill makes an exception to the Suicide Act. I fully support her point about the supportive nature of the conversations that would take place with families. If we use the word “encourage”, we are in danger of lacking clarity. Where is the line between encouragement and support? I would like her to expand on that, if she could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise that different people will have different views on levels of coercion. I have already quoted some of the witnesses; I found it quite jarring that certain witnesses who had facilitated assisted dying for hundreds—perhaps thousands—of people said that there were no cases of coercion. I find that difficult to believe, although I do not doubt for a second that they believe it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The witnesses gave evidence in good faith, and I would be uncomfortable if we started to question the validity or truth behind their testimony.

[Rebecca Paul]

Just to clarify, I am not questioning that they were not telling their truth. I completely believe that, from their perspective, they honestly believe they have never seen a case of coercion. Maybe I am more of a glass-half-empty kind of girl than some other people, but I question whether that is really the case. In my 45 years on this planet, I have learned enough about humankind to know that these things do happen, but different people will take different views when it comes to detecting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Clause 24 decriminalises assistance to commit suicide, in order that assisted dying becomes lawful. It does not specifically decriminalise encouragement, which means that the Suicide Act 1961 still applies if someone were to encourage someone to commit suicide. It would therefore be a crime and have a sentence associated with it. However, the hon. Lady makes a really good point: it would be of great value at the relevant time to hear from the Minister on the legal point I am making. I hope everything I am saying is coherent and sound, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is doing an amazing job—and taking lots of interventions. As I have always said, I am very open-minded to whatever we need to do to make the Bill more robust. I am not a lawyer, like the hon. Lady—we have lawyers in the room, fortunately, who can provide guidance and assistance in that regard—but what has been made clear to me is that the law needs clarity.

The hon. Lady has already mentioned a couple of times that this change could be described as a lower level of coercion, or it could be argued that there is a lack of clarity there. I think the sentiment is absolutely right, and I really support that, but we need the law to be clear. And if legal colleagues are assuring us that the concept of undue influence would be covered under “coercion”—and I am kind of hearing that—then I think it would be covered. I think that point about the law being clear is really important. Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. If we do not incorporate undue influence, we are at a lower threshold compared with withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. That does not feel to me like the right position, but equally, this is a novel bit of legislation and we need to increase the safeguards further. Obviously, we shall be debating numerous amendments whose purpose is to raise that threshold. It is always very hard—how long is a piece of string?—to know exactly where to set a threshold. Different people have different views. My personal view is that in this Bill the threshold is too low, so we need to raise it by agreeing some of these amendments. So far, none of the amendments that have been suggested has been accepted. I really hope that during this Committee stage we will increase the safeguards.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Hopefully this will be my final point on this subject. I believe there is consensus in the room; no one is saying that undue influence is acceptable. The question is, where does it sit within the Bill in terms of definitions? That is where I would appreciate, along with the hon. Lady, advice from legal experts—and indeed the Minister—around whether we are confident that with the concept of coercion we are including undue influence. Does she agree that that clarity would be helpful?

[Rebecca Paul]

I absolutely agree that such clarity would be very useful. The hon. Member and I both want to ensure that undue influence is captured somewhere; I am less picky about where. As long as it gets covered somewhere in the Bill, that would be an improvement to the Bill, and I hope that everyone would really welcome that. I think everyone recognises the issue. I am not hearing that people are opposed to this; they recognise that there can be more subtle forms of coercion. If we can work together to find the best place for that to go in the Bill, I am very open to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the case, and to the point that I made earlier: it is extremely difficult when the Bill is a moving feast. We are tabling amendments to the Bill as drafted, but if substantial changes are made, that will impact some of what we did earlier.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We are looking at different amendments as the Bill progresses, but a judge would always be involved in criminal offences, which is what we are talking about now.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing her view on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful intervention. She is right: that was the article I mentioned. Reading about such stories does have a profound impact.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful and important points about, sadly, a lot of the ills in society, which we all deal with.

Let us take the example of a woman who has a terminal illness and is coerced and pressured by a loved one to end her own life. At the moment, we have no idea whether that has happened, because there is no legal framework around that dreadful situation. The Bill would create a legal framework, so that conversations would be had with that woman prior to that point and, hopefully, that point would never come. She would speak to two doctors, potentially a psychiatrist, and other experts to ensure that that did not happen. At the moment, there is no legal framework around that. The Bill also includes a criminal offence of coercion, for which someone could go to prison for 14 years. At the moment, that just is not there.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, but I feel that the point is being missed. It is true that there is no framework, but for somebody to get to this point in the first instance they need to have a terminal illness. There is a framework around domestic violence, and domestic violence laws exist for everybody. Frameworks already exist for women fleeing domestic violence, and there is no shortage of attempts to try to get those legal frameworks right across society. That is why we had the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, why we have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and why the Prime Minister made a personal commitment in that regard—and rightly so.

There has already been a test case in which a judge said that medics have an obligation in this context. An hon. Member referred yesterday to assisted dying being a treatment, although I disagree, and we had that conversation later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I understand that the writers, promoter and sponsors of the Bill want it to be as simple as possible. The thought is that if we make it as simple as possible, there is less room for confusion and misinterpretation, but there are times when we can make things so simple that we allow far too much interpretation. Words such as those that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to be put into the Bill are really important. Manipulation is really important. Coercion and pressure are not measures of every type of controlling behaviour that happens to individuals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am very supportive of the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendments, and she is making some really good points. Again, the question is about the simplicity of the language that goes in the Bill. The CPS guidelines on coercion and coercive control includes behaviour that is

“highly manipulative such as: ‘love bombing’ where the suspect will intermittently do what appears to be loving acts, seeking to present these as interrupting or negating the course of conduct”,

so there is language in there about manipulation. I hope that provides some reassurance that manipulation is seen to be part of the broader concepts of coercion and coercive control in the eyes of the law.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for looking that up so swiftly. I still think that those additional words need to be included in the Bill. “Coercion” and “pressure” are used as a catch-all for manipulation, but the Bill does not allow people who are using it in their everyday life—doctors, clinicians, nurses and social workers—to understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—undue influence does exist in law, including in laws that have been passed very recently. I recognise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley is not impressed by laws that are more than 10 years old, but I hope he might be satisfied that a law passed last year is sufficiently up to date and modern for him to regard as morally valid. Undue influence is an existing term, and we should apply it in this case.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, and in response to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, although I stand to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, I do not think that he said that undue influence was an archaic term. I think it was the word “encouraged”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My goodness, 2009 might be in the mists of history for the hon. Member for Rother Valley, but it was the last Labour Government. That is very good to know, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley made the point, which is quite often made in defence of the Bill, that there is currently no framework to spot coercion, therefore the Bill creates greater protections for people. The fact is that, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said, there is no law that currently allows assisted dying, so no framework is necessary to prohibit encouragement or inducement to an assisted death—the opportunity does not exist. I think everyone must acknowledge that, if we pass the Bill, we may open up a new avenue for abuse, and it is necessary that the Bill close it off. That is right and appropriate.

Coercion and abuse no doubt go on and are tragically common, but the answer to that problem is not to legalise assisted suicide and put a regulatory framework around it with limited protections against coercion and influence. We have to deal with the terrible cancer of abuse and coercion that exists in our society, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said. If we are concerned about undue pressure in families, that should be our social mission. If we are to have an assisted dying law, let us make it as strong as possible. As I say, we are potentially opening up a new avenue for abuse within families.

[Kim Leadbeater]

For me, the law needs to change for a number of reasons, and we will talk about some of them as Committee proceedings continue: autonomy, dignity, personal choice and bodily autonomy. In terms of this issue, we heard from families who faced police investigations as a result of a loved one taking their own life. Not only were they dealing with the trauma, grief and loss of their bereavement, but they faced often months and months of police investigation. In the oral evidence sessions, we heard from Pat Malone, who was in that situation after his brother took his own life. Surely the hon. Member has to acknowledge that that is a problem. It is not the only problem, and it is not the only reason for the Bill, but he has to acknowledge that we as legislators have a duty to correct it.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that those investigations will still happen, because not everybody who commits suicide will be subject to the Bill; not everybody who is terminally ill and wants to take their life with the assistance of their loved ones will be caught under it. I am sure she acknowledges that it is therefore still appropriate to have safeguards against assisted suicide outside the law—in fact, the Bill strengthens those safeguards. Those will still continue. I also regard it as appropriate and necessary to have a law against assisted suicide, for all the reasons that we have been discussing.

The hon. Lady is right that it is appropriate for Parliament or the authorities in general to ensure that cases such as those we have discussed, and that have been powerfully testified to us, are handled sensitively. In an overwhelming number of cases, the police do handle them well and sensitively. It might be that we need to improve the guidance around prosecution, and that is an important question. I certainly do not want the families of people who have taken their own lives to be harassed and chased through the courts, and I think we would all agree on that. In that respect, the guidance for the CPS and the police will always evolve.

[Danny Kruger]

I think that is right. I do not accept the claim that this Bill is somehow a response to the problem of abuse, coercion or the pressure to end life in families. Tragically, in jurisdictions that have an assisted dying law, the number of unassisted suicides—suicides that happen outside of the law—go up, because no law can catch all the people who might want to take their own lives. Thankfully, there is no blanket support for any assisted suicide; all the jurisdictions have some restrictions.

More significantly, if the state said that some people’s lives are not worth living and that it is an acceptable choice for them to end their own life—which is not what the current law says; we have legalised suicide, not actually endorsed it—by passing a law that endorsed the choice of some people to take their own life, we would be sending a signal that we agree that some people’s lives are not worth living. The social consequence of that is clear in the evidence from other jurisdictions: suicide in the general population goes up as a result of an assisted dying law.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, the evidence does not clearly show that there is a direct relationship between those two things; there are other factors and no way of knowing that. On the concept of ending one’s own life and giving people the choice under the provisions of the Bill, what would the hon. Gentleman say to people who frame that concept very differently—as a way to shorten their death? Those terminally ill people, in my experience—I have met many of them now—do not view this as a way of ending their life, because they want to live, but the reality is that they are dying and want to take control of what their death looks like. How would he respond to that?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

There is a certain confusion about the extent to which encouragement of assisted suicide—assisted dying, under the terms of the Bill—would be legal or not. The Bill does not decriminalise encouragement either to an assisted suicide, which is an assisted death within the scope of the Bill, or to an unassisted suicide—suicide outside the scope of the Bill, as it were. What we have heard, and certainly the implication of the Bill, is that encouraging either would be illegal in principle. The purpose behind the amendments would be to ensure that the doctors doing the initial assessment are obliged to check and satisfy themselves that there has not been encouragement.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I might have missed it this morning, but what definition of “encouragement” are the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reigate proposing to use? Having looked at various definitions myself, I do not think that there is a definitive legal definition, but please correct me if I am wrong. Some definitions that I have seen include: to encourage somebody, to give someone confidence or to support someone to do something. Are we saying that it would be wrong to give someone the confidence or support someone to do something? That would feel very wrong and very different from coercing someone to do something.

[Danny Kruger]

On the point about encouragement, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for reminding me that her new clause 5 specifies a definition of encouragement:

“an act capable of encouraging suicide which would constitute an offence under section 2”

of the Suicide Act. Encouragement is encouragement—the term exists in the Suicide Act already. It exists in case law and in statute, so the term is what it is.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am very open minded on these issues, but are the amendments trying to stop someone giving someone else confidence or supporting them to do something? That would feel wrong.

[Danny Kruger]

We are suggesting that an application in which the applicant has been encouraged—or coerced, unduly influenced or manipulated—would not be acceptable. The assessing doctor must confirm that there has been no encouragement. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that satisfies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am trying to ensure that there will be a sufficiently broad scope that doctors must be obliged to check that there has been no undue influence, pressure or encouragement. An example would be an elderly person who has been actively encouraged: it has been suggested in all love, and possibly with perfectly decent motives in the mind of the person applying the encouragement, that it would be best for them, their family and society as a whole if they would expedite their death—earlier than would otherwise happen in the natural course of things. “Encouragement” is a more comprehensive term and concept than “pressure” or “coercion”.

Our concern is that a doctor applying the current test in the Bill will simply look for evidence of direct, fairly forceful pressure or coercion, as it is understood in the more heinous cases, with which we are all familiar, of partners applying coercive control or direct abuse. We obviously all want to exclude that, and it is already excluded. What we are concerned about here is the more insidious, subtle and—I am afraid to say—widespread pressure that the evidence from our witnesses told us about. We are concerned that it is not possible to ensure that people will be protected if the terms currently in the Bill stand.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am concerned that the hon. Member did exactly what we are in danger of doing by saying, “Whether it’s under influence, whether it’s pressure, whether it’s coercion, whether it’s other things.” We are in danger of using these words interchangeably, as he just did. That is not what the law needs. The law needs certainty, with clear expressions. I think that the hon. Member also said that encouragement is a broader form of pressure, but who is saying that? Is he saying that? Is the hon. Member for Reigate saying that? Is that a legal summation? I am not entirely sure where encouragement fits in with these other points.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not sure that we are going to satisfy each other on this point. A lot of the evidence that we have heard conclusively asserts that there is a widespread problem of families applying—and I do use these terms fairly interchangeably—undue influence, encouragement and manipulation. Pressure and coercion form a subset of those terms. They are at the sharp end—the more obvious forms of encouragement and manipulation. Those terms exist in law, and this certainly exists in society, as we have heard from Members and witnesses. It feels to me entirely appropriate and consistent with the principles of the Bill that we are trying to ensure that the new law will only be available to people who are acting entirely autonomously, without having been in any way—however subtly—the victims of any sort of undue influence. That is the purpose of these amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I emphasise that the basis of the Bill, despite what many campaigners might want, is not one of total autonomy. The Bill requires us to have some responsibility towards the applicant, and not simply to say “Do you want it? You can have it.” There are already provisions in the Bill that put an obligation on the assessing doctors and then the judge not so much to conclude that it is in the person’s best interests—I am afraid it does not have that stipulation—but it does seek to insist that they make their own decision.

As the hon. Lady said, many people make a decision and might not even be fully aware themselves that they are the subject of undue influence. They may be being deceived by their loved ones. Their loved ones might be deceiving themselves about the pressure they are putting on them, but let us just talk about a genuine intent to persuade, which does happen. In answer to the question, “Have you been coerced or pressured?”, the patient may say, “No, of course not.” But if they are asked, “Have you been encouraged?”, they might say, “Actually, yes, I have.” That should raise a very significant red flag, and it is absolutely appropriate and sufficient at that point to say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t conclude that this is an autonomous decision.”

To conclude, I refer back to the debate we have been having since the news broke two days ago that there will be an amendment to scrap the judicial stage that is currently in the Bill. If there were a High Court judge sitting at the end of this process, as we were promised and as was understood by the House when it voted on Second Reading—if there were a judge sitting over each individual case, rather than sitting at the head of a national assisted dying commission, and if there were a judge sitting in court reviewing the case properly—there might arguably be no need for the amendment on undue influence.

It is possible, as the Minister explained, that coercion would sufficiently capture the more insidious undue influence and encouragement we are concerned about. It is possible that we could strengthen the definition of coercion through guidance, or through further definition in the Bill. But if we are going to have a panel, and not a court or a judicial process at all, it is even more necessary that we insist on added protection.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Surely, as I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say on the radio yesterday morning, it is better to have expertise of this nature involved in the process. On the issue of coercion and the evidence that we received from psychiatrists—which was more in terms of capacity, but on coercion as well—and certainly from social workers, the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers was very clear that this is what they do. Surely the hon. Gentleman has to agree that by involving those people in the process, we are strengthening the issues he is concerned about.

[Danny Kruger]

At the risk of debating an amendment that has not even been tabled yet and that will come later in the Bill—I wish we were able to see it—the hon. Lady is absolutely right: I do indeed believe it would be very helpful to have as many professional eyes on each case as possible, so I welcome the suggestion of more experts. I am not clear what they will be yet, and in fact I support amendments that will insist on psychiatric assessments, but those need to come earlier.

It is appropriate and absolutely right—not necessarily for this clause, but for the one we will come to shortly on assessment—that there should be as many professional eyes on the case as possible, but there does need to be a judge at the end of the process. That is certainly what the House of Commons voted for, and I think it is what the public would require. In the absence of that—if there is not going to be a judge applying this somewhat legalistic definition of coercion that apparently should include all the more insidious forms of influence that we are concerned about—in my view it is even more imperative that we specify very early that the first doctor who sees the patient must ensure that there has been no undue influence, manipulation or encouragement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I am sorry to hear that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly because we have had a thorough discussion about these issues. I completely understand the sincere intention behind these amendments. It is clear from the fulsome discussion we have had that colleagues across the Committee agree that undue influence and manipulation should be covered by the Bill—as should all types of coercive behaviour. The question is, “How?” I feel reassured by comments from legal colleagues and the Minister that the language currently used in the Bill—“coercion” and “pressure”—covers these additional concepts, as those terms appear in existing criminal offences, and the statutory guidance from the Home Office in 2023 along with the Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance cover the broad range of coercive behaviours. It is up to hon. Members to decide whether to push these amendments to a vote. I am understanding of the intention and appreciative of the comprehensive debate that we have had.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank all Members for their contributions. I echo the hon. Member for Spen Valley when I say that this is one particular case where we all agree on what should be happening functionally and practically. We have had some quite technical arguments today about the meanings and definitions of certain words and how they would apply. It has been a constructive and interesting debate. As a first-timer to a Bill Committee, it has been a great experience.

It is clear from the evidence received and the contributions from Members that subtle coercion is something we are all concerned about and recognise needs to be dealt with. We have heard powerful stories today and from witnesses in recent weeks, so it is incumbent on us to listen and take action. One of the points that resonated with me yesterday was that made by the hon. Member for Bradford West. I am now paraphrasing a little bit: essentially, she said that we are not legislating for a perfect world where everyone is treated equally; that our society is filled with inequality, and we must legislate for the reality, not for the rose-tinted version that we would all prefer. Coercion and undue influence does happen more commonly than we might think, and it is hard to detect. It is therefore vital that when we go through this Bill, we always have the most vulnerable at front of mind. It is not about when everything works perfectly, as intended, for the very small group of people who would benefit from the Bill, but what happens when it does not work, and the impact on a potentially bigger, more vulnerable group. That is the crux of our roles here today.

I thank the Minister for her very informative and helpful speech setting out the Government’s position on legalities of the various definitions. There will, however, be different legal opinions on this. I sought advice from former Attorney General Victoria Prentis KC, who takes a different view. I am very aware that when it comes to going through the courts, there will be different interpretations and views. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know which is right, but I do know that if I put this amendment on the face of the Bill, it is there and it is safer. That is where I am coming from on this. I reiterate that we do see these terms “coerced”, “pressured” and “unduly influenced” in various bits of legislation. Those words are chosen for specific reasons. It is important to note that.

On encouragement, I am going to talk again about the purpose of the amendment. Right now, under the Suicide Act, assisting someone to commit suicide is a crime, but encouraging someone to commit suicide is also a crime. Clause 24 of the Bill decriminalises the assistance piece to allow legalisation of assisted dying, but it does not decriminalise the encouragement piece. I have tabled amendment 82, because we need to address that. The clause is limited to the provision of assistance and does not include the encouragement of a person to end their own life.

I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire about how “encouragement” could be interpreted, which is a really good point. I also take the point that although it is referred to in the Suicide Act, there is no clear definition, so we are relying on case law. If we all came to this with a blank bit of paper, we might come up with different laws. However, we have laws that are already in place, and that is why I have tabled this amendment. The reality is that encouragement of suicide is a criminal activity right now, which is why we need to address it here.

On undue influence, the Minister set out that the amendment is not legally necessary. The hon. Members for Rother Valley and for Penistone and Stocksbridge gave interpretations of this point, but I gently point out that they contradicted each other, which shows how complicated the situation is. Different people will have different views. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge said that “undue influence” is a term in equity, and that it is not proper to have it as part of the criminal offence of coercion in clause 26, but the hon. Member for Rother Valley said that coercion in that provision does not include undue influence. Does that not show that the legal meaning of the Bill is unclear and would benefit from some clarification?



Amendment 23 on undue influence first appeared on the amendment paper on 21 January, almost three weeks ago. My understanding from those who were previously in government, including at the Ministry of Justice, is that when an MP tables an amendment that is legally unnecessary, the Government would seek to meet them, together with Government lawyers, to explain why the Government believe the amendment is legally unnecessary and to give them time to reflect. It is my understanding that, with respect to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), that was not done. She met the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, on Monday, but they did not discuss the amendment on undue influence.

Similarly, my amendment 82 on encouragement appeared on the amendment paper on 4 February, over a week ago, and I have had no communication from either the Government or the Bill’s promoter about it. The first time I or my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire have heard that our amendments might be legally unnecessary or problematic is today. When formulating my amendment, I had the benefit of advice from former Attorney General Victoria Prentis KC, who has written a letter to The Times endorsing it; the Minister will appreciate that I would not want to withdraw my amendment without the benefit of further advice from her, so I will press it to a vote.

However, if there are any points of technical drafting relating to the amendment that the Government would like to deal with through tidying-up amendments, I would very much welcome that. What has come out of this conversation is that it is not straightforward or clear; there are some things that need to be thought through, including the interactions between clause 24 and clause 26 and the various definitions, so that we are being really clear. I am open to doing that in the most suitable and appropriate way.

--- Later in debate ---

The point we are making is that if it is really clearcut that something does not work from a legal perspective, it would surely make sense to try to get ahead of that, give advance notice and have the discussion beforehand. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we spend all our time and effort on the amendments that will improve the Bill. We are all here to improve the safeguards on the Bill and make sure that the piece of legislation that goes before Parliament, when the time comes, is as good as it can be. We are all in the same place on that objective.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not sure whether the hon. Member contacted me to meet—if she did, I am very sorry; I must have missed that message—but other members of the Committee and Members of the House have asked me to meet with them, and I have met with them and had discussions. If she contacted me asking to discuss her amendment, I apologise.

[Rebecca Paul]

I can confirm that I did not contact the promoter on this. My understanding is that if something is not legally coherent, it would normally be the Government who would contact the relevant MP to have that discussion and allow that reflection. That was the point I was trying to make; my apologies if I focused on the promoter more than I should have. I always enjoy meeting the promoter of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I welcome the broader debate, but I am very conscious that the amendment does not actually use the word “burden”. It talks about someone

“acting for their own sake rather than for the benefit of others.”

Although the broader debate is welcome, it is important to look at the detail of the amendment.

[Danny Kruger]

That is fair enough. The amendment seeks to insist that people will have an assisted death for their own sake. What we are trying to exclude is the opposite of that—that they are doing it for others. The principal reason why people want an assisted death, if they are not being coerced—which we have already sought to exclude—is that their own internalised view that it would be better for other people for them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I always worry when the doctor is providing assistance. [Laughter.] No, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to get me back on track.

We hear about morphine allergy, and I recognise that apparently it does exist, albeit very rarely. Patients with a morphine allergy can still receive opioid analgesics—there are different sorts of opioids—and there are case studies in the literature that show they can achieve good palliation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As someone who lives with someone who has a very severe morphine allergy, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those things do exist and are very real, and they create a huge sense of fear in people. Having met a terminally ill woman who is also allergic to opioids, I think it is really important to acknowledge that these are very real problems for people.

[Danny Kruger]

I totally acknowledge that. I fully recognise that, as I said, morphine allergy does indeed exist, but I am told that it is very rare. I hope that the hon. Lady’s relative will confirm that there are other things that can be done for people who suffer from pain if morphine is not appropriate.

I suppose that is the point that I want to make: no palliative care professional would ever say that they cannot help somebody in terrible pain. There is always something that they would like to do and always more that they can do to assist. The simple reality is that palliative care is improving so much that there is only an infinitesimally small number of people whom palliative care professionals would confirm they cannot help. I recognise that those people exist. I am not being naive or Panglossian and suggesting that palliative care can be perfect in all cases, but if we are serious about the purpose of the Bill, which is to help those whom palliative care cannot help, I suggest that that number will be very small.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and to the noble Baroness Finlay, whom I mentioned. They are leading a commission on palliative care at the moment, which is a helpful corollary to the debate we are having here. They will make a series of recommendations, which I will not go into.

I want to conclude with this obvious point. I am repeating myself, in a sense, so I will be quick. If we are going to do this, let us be honest and straightforward about what we want to achieve. We want people who are dying in extreme agony at the very end of their life to avoid the pain of death and be able to avail themselves of this service. It is either that or we say, “No, we have no interest in people’s motivation for wanting it. We simply respect their autonomy. Unless we can detect external coercion,” which is the only thing that the Bill currently seeks to exclude, “and as long as a doctor can give confirmation that they have six months to live,” which is not difficult to get, “we don’t care why they’re doing it. We respect their wish, and whoever they are and whatever is going on behind the scenes, they can go for it.” We either have a Bill based on full autonomy—I think that is what some hon. Members genuinely believe we should do—or we try to restrict it to just those people who face an agonising death at the very end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I cannot really comment, because I did not get the specific question that my hon. Friend asked.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Returning to the amendments before us, I will try to keep my comments brief, as we have had a thorough debate this afternoon. On amendments 95 to 104, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for Braintree and I know that these amendments seek to stimulate discussion, and I am very pleased that they have done that this afternoon. I also know that they come from a good place.

I have already discussed the additional safeguards around training that would be added to the Bill through new clause 8, which states that the Secretary of State must consult

“persons appearing to…have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced”.

That would consolidate the existing measures in the Bill and, I hope, relate to the concerns expressed in the amendment to some degree.

More broadly, the reasons that someone might choose an assisted death may well include sparing those they love the pain of seeing them suffer, as we have heard this afternoon. That is certainly something that members of my family and people I have spoken to say would matter to them. That should not prevent the provision of assistance. It is surely for that person to decide.

During oral evidence, we heard powerful testimony from Liz Reed about her brother Rob, who had an assisted death in Queensland, Australia. Rob was 39 years old and had a young family when he was diagnosed with stage 4 terminal lung cancer. He was fit, young and healthy, and did not smoke. As well as taking back control at the end of his life, one of his main reasons for choosing an assisted death was so that his young family could remember him as the man and the dad he was. He was not afraid of death, but he was afraid of dying in an undignified and painful way; he was afraid of not getting to say goodbye to his wife and children, or them having to find him after his having had a massive heart attack. Surely we should not decide that that is not acceptable and understandable. It is a perfectly understandable reason for choosing an assisted death.

Liz told us that Rob

“was able to change his mind, which he did, in terms of dates and when it would happen. His views and the views of his family were also taken into account and, through the process, he was treated like a person with autonomy whose choices were being respected.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 254, Q328.]

If relatives were implicitly or explicitly coercing or pressuring someone, that would of course be very different—and that is covered by the Bill—but to prevent someone from wanting to consider their loved ones in their final weeks and months of life does not seem at all reasonable to me.

I have talked about training, which is important and feeds into the debate about the assessment of coercion and pressure—here, I refer again to my new clause 8. As we heard during the oral evidence, who is involved in that training is important. We heard from the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers. Its position statement on assisted dying states:

“As social workers we bring a distinctive perspective and skill set. Our focus is on helping people to get practical needs met; to enable them and their families cope with the impact of serious illness and dying and to plan ahead”.

[Naz Shah]

My understanding is that the judges’ views on capacity relate to the fact that there are only 200 qualified palliative care social workers in the country.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This point is about training, and so about hearing from the right people when it comes to the training of professionals. It is important that we ensure that the Secretary of State must consult such people, and I anticipate that organisations such as the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers would be consulted. The statement continues:

“as well as protecting people from abuse, neglect and coercion at a time…when they are most vulnerable…Our expertise includes building trusting relationships, comprehensive knowledge of safeguarding”.

By looking at the training process, people’s motivations for seeking an assisted death would hopefully be considered.

[Danny Kruger]

Would the hon. Lady be content if somebody who had capacity chose an assisted death for the purpose of saving their family money?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Very few cases are as straightforward as that, and that is where conversations with doctors and professionals are really important. I think it was the doctor from California who said that if someone said to him, “I am doing this because I am a burden,” that would be a red flag. There would have to be a much more detailed, complex conversation with patients about what their motivations were, and it is important that we acknowledge, as medical colleagues have, what those conversations might look like.

[Danny Kruger]

But if the doctor concluded that they were doing it because they felt they were a burden, they would still be able to get the assisted death under the hon. Lady’s Bill. The only question is whether they have capacity. If they have been judged to have capacity, choosing to have the assisted death in order to save their family money would be acceptable under her Bill, would it not?

[Kim Leadbeater]

We are oversimplifying a complex situation and a difficult conversation. We have talked about coercion and pressure a lot. If someone says, “I just want it all to be over, because I feel like a burden”, that is the sort of conversation that doctors acknowledge would be a red flag. Those are complex, difficult conversations; we need the expertise that we would get by providing serious amounts of training around this issue so that those conversations can take place in a sensitive way.

[Danny Kruger]

This is my last intervention, I promise. I want to hear the hon. Lady confirm that under the Bill as currently drafted, after all these conversations have taken place, as long as the doctor cannot find evidence of coercion, they would be obliged to approve the assisted death, as would the judge and the judicial panel. If that is the case, and they conclude that a person has capacity and there is no evidence of coercion, no matter what conversations go on—if the person wants to do it in order to save their family money—the doctors and the judges would have to say yes.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I, again, refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous points; we are oversimplifying a really complex conversation, which would take into account lots of different factors for each individual. That is all I will say on that point.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is really important that we are honest about what the Bill does. We are looking for a simple answer—yes or no. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire has very clearly set out the situation, and I know that the hon. Member for Spen Valley understands her Bill inside and out, so if she could give us a yes or no that would be really helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Sorry, what was your question?

[Rebecca Paul]

It is the same question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire: would someone be allowed to access assisted dying if it was clear that they had capacity and their reason for it was simply not to cost their relatives financial expense or be a burden. It is important to be honest about what the Bill does. Is the answer to that yes?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am certainly not being dishonest, which is the hon. Lady’s implication. I refer back to the complexity of those conversations, and the fact that safeguards will need to be in place to check for coercion, dishonesty and pressure. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of autonomy, dignity and choice for patients, but they are not simple conversations. I think it would be very unusual if the conversation looked how she is describing.

[Dr Opher]

As a doctor, if I, under this legislation, came across someone who gave their main reason for ending their life as being that they wanted to save money for their family, that would come under pressure or coercion, even if it was from themselves.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is really important to remember that, at the moment, there is no legal framework that checks terminally ill people’s reasons for ending their lives or shortening their deaths. That is why having this legal framework is so important. During the oral evidence sessions, Sir Max Hill told us that in his experience of working as Director of Public Prosecutions, he oversaw a number of cases to do with people travelling to Dignitas. He said:

“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill…is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]

The same applies to terminally ill people who have taken their own lives in this country. The only time that anyone checks for coercion, either internal or external, is when the person is dead. The Bill provides a robust legal framework, which is a significant improvement on things as they stand.

Dr Aneez Esmail, who changed his position on assisted dying as a result of his work as a professor of general practice, said in his oral evidence,

“How is the law protecting anyone at the moment?…we don’t have a legal framework…it is actually very unsafe…a law…which produces safeguards, is a huge improvement on where we are at the moment.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 166, Q211.]

I also worry about the subjectivity of this amendment. We know that the law likes certainty, rather than abstract concepts, such as doing something for one’s “own sake”, which seems somewhat abstract.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend has referred a few times now to us not having this framework. We do not have this framework because we do not have this law. Maybe she can help me to understand or correct me if I am wrong, but this framework does not exist because we do not have this law. For this law to exist, we have to have the framework. I am inferring from her a suggestion that she is somehow intervening for people who might be being coerced in a hospital setting or at the end of life in any case, but that is not the case.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not quite sure I understand the point. My point is that there is no law that is checking people’s motivations for ending their lives when they are terminally ill, and that is what this law would do.

I will make some progress, and come to amendments 235 to 245. As we have heard from witnesses, choice at the end of life is not just about physical pain, be it current or potential. It can also be about psychological suffering and mental torment as a result of being terminally ill —and it is of course about taking back control, bodily autonomy, dignity and choice. What about patients who are in severe mental torment and fear as a result of their condition, and terminally ill people who want the autonomy and dignity of taking back control at the end of their lives? Who are we to ask them to prove their level of physical pain or desire to avoid physical pain, and to deny them the choice in their final few weeks or months?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is very important. I urge the Committee to accept it, as it would ensure the provision of a palliative care consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has always said, it is about having a holistic approach—we need to get back to that.

In the evidence sessions, we heard that palliative care social workers can play a pivotal role in supporting patients. Those from other professions—psychological services, chaplaincy services, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists—along with specialist nurses and medics can all contribute to the care of a patient at the end of life. In discussions with palliative care specialists who listened to the debate on 29 November, they were perplexed by the symptoms that were graphically described in the case studies, and cited poor care as the reason for them. Many such symptoms can be controlled, and they were shocked that such examples of poor care were presented as a reason for assisted death, rather than for making good quality palliative care available to all patients.

We further heard evidence, especially from Dr Jamilla Hussain, that access to palliative care is inequitable. We know that those from minoritised communities and from low socioeconomic backgrounds have poorer access to good palliative care, and that people can have poor access depending on where they live, and on the day of the week or the hour of the day. Through this amendment, we want to ensure that everyone who is seeking an assisted death, or who has it suggested to them, as this Bill allows, is able to access a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist, who can dispel the myths while supporting them with their end-of-life plan.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talked about the stories that we heard on Second Reading. Does she acknowledge, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, that there are cases where palliative care cannot meet a patient’s needs? We have a lady in the Public Gallery this morning whose mother had a horrible death, having had ovarian cancer and mouth cancer; she had to have her tongue removed, so she could not eat and drink, and she essentially starved to death. We have to be careful not to dismiss those cases, because they are real stories of real human beings, and we have to acknowledge the limitations of palliative care.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree. Nobody in this Committee, from what I have heard over the weeks of evidence that we have taken, is suggesting in any way that we are dismissive of people who actually need an assisted death and would benefit from the Bill. As I have said previously, and as Dr Jamilla said very clearly, there are some patients who clinically would benefit from an intervention such as an assisted death. I came on to this Bill Committee to ensure we have the best legislation and safeguards in place. The Bill currently does not ensure that people are aware of the options. This amendment would ensure that people have considered all options and can make an informed choice. If there is no requirement to speak to a specialist, I am afraid the Bill would do a disservice to those who might want to use it to seek an assisted death by not presenting them with those options.

In evidence from the representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, we heard an example of somebody who was in lots of pain and decided to seek an assisted death, but changed their mind once they understood that their pain could be alleviated. That is what this amendment is about. I urge the Committee to vote for it, because it is fundamental that we enable people to make an informed choice and to understand the services and options available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I will address the amendments in two different ways. I will start by looking at the technical issues around amendment 281, and then I will look at why I believe, as other colleagues have said, that the amendments are not necessary given what already exists both in the Bill and in terms of good practice in our health service.

First, I worry that amendment 281 will not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intends. Clause 1(2), to which the amendment relates, provides an overview of the other clauses in the Bill, and therefore cross-refers to sections 5 to 22. Clause 1(2) does not impose duties on persons in and of itself. The duties are set out in the later clauses to which it refers. Adding an additional subsection to clause 1, as proposed by the amendment, would not result in a requirement that the person must meet a palliative care specialist. That is a technical detail to reflect on.

In addition, the term “palliative care specialist” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council, and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for the speciality provided that they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. However, the current wording of the amendment means that it is not clear whether it is seeking to require the person concerned to meet with one of those specialist doctors, or whether a meeting with another medical professional specialising in palliative care—for example, a specialist palliative care nurse—would suffice. There is no equivalent specialist register for specialist palliative care nurses. It is a technical issue, but an important one.

I also point out that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has put an incorrect explanatory note with the amendment, which refers to terminal illness. That might just be an error, but I wanted to point that out.

Coming on to the broader grouping of the provisions: as has been said by colleagues, the amendments are tabled with really good intentions by someone who cares passionately about the palliative care sector. But they are not necessary given the process that is already set out by the Bill. Both doctors already have to discuss all treatment options, and must make a referral if they have any doubt about the diagnosis. It is very clear from clauses 4 and 9 that both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must discuss all treatment options with the patient, so they will have all the options laid out before them. That is really important because we have to think about what happens in reality. This initial discussion, in many cases, may actually take place with a palliative care doctor, and in many cases it will be highly likely, given the nature of the conditions we are talking about, that the patient may already be receiving treatment or advice from a palliative care team.

We seem to have created a narrative where this conversation is happening in isolation. Actually, as other colleagues have alluded to, we have a patient-centred approach in our healthcare. This person does not just suddenly arrive and have this one random conversation. I am sure medical colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but if a doctor is dealing with a condition of which they have very limited knowledge, one of the first things they would do would be to refer to a specialist.

As is covered in clause 9(3)(a), if the doctor has any

“doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill,”

they must

“refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications in or has experience of the diagnosis and management of the illness, disease or condition in question;”

Clause 9(2)(a) also states that both doctors must assess the patient’s

“medical records and make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate;”

They can speak to anyone they want to, and they would in reality—of course that is what they would do. They would not sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t know enough about this condition so I will just keep going.” They would refer to specialists.

It is also really important to acknowledge what goes on at the moment. I was looking at some research last night: NHS England also has comprehensive guidance on personalised palliative and end-of-life care through a comprehensive personalised care model. None of this stops with the introduction of assisted dying as a choice for people. It would continue to happen. Patients are already getting that really good level of care.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech about how things should work and how things do work, in many cases, when the NHS does its job brilliantly. First, I want to correct the hon. Lady: subsequent amendments do impose the duty that is consequent to these amendments to clause 1, so it would be an obligation. Surely that is the point to make: what if the doctors are not as brilliant as she suggests? What if there is not an expectation that they should definitely seek expertise that they do not have themselves? To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, what if this service is provided outside the NHS by an independent charity or private provider set up explicitly to facilitate people’s assisted death requests, and has no intention of referring people to palliative care if they do not ask for it themselves? Would she be content for a private provider to refer somebody for an assisted death without a palliative care referral?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do worry about the lack of faith in our professionals. We have medical practitioners on the Committee and we have heard stories of the very good practice that happens, so it concerns me that we are so cynical about our system. Ultimately, we have to put faith in our professionals to do their job and to take that patient-centred approach, as I firmly believe they do. Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said in her evidence to the Committee:

“In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams…shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q90.]

I absolutely agree with her, and that would continue to be the case.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member mentioned earlier the idea that this is happening in isolation, but it is her Bill that is saying that it will just be two doctors, not a team of medical professionals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

But it does not say that at all. It actually says that they have to refer, and that they have to consult with other people. That is part of the process. That is exactly what happens now. Professor Aneez Esmail, who is the emeritus professor of general practice at the University of Manchester and who has been a practising GP for over 30 years, told us in his evidence to the Committee:

“In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people…palliative care…works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 171, Q219.]

Indeed, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, if we consider the training included in the Bill, which doctors will undergo as part of the introduction of assisted dying, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that these are very detailed conversations where health professionals work together in the same way as they do at the moment in end of life care and decision making. As I have said repeatedly, the training is fundamental. I agree absolutely with Dr Rachel Clarke, who told us:

“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]

I agree 100% and I have embedded that in the Bill.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend quotes Dr Rachel Clarke. I was profoundly moved by her evidence. She was very clear that she wanted to talk about the NHS as it is, not as we would like it to be. Despite the efforts the Government are putting into bringing down waiting lists, there is still extreme time pressure on doctors. There are extreme waiting lists for people to access specialist care, which may impinge on the ability of doctors to carry out what my hon. Friend is asking. Does she accept that?

[Kim Leadbeater]

That brings me on very nicely to my next point, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. At the moment, the Bill accommodates a two-year implementation period, which is really important because it will take time to put the procedures in place: it will take time to train people and it will take time to work holistically with the overall healthcare system. It could end up being longer than two years. If that is the case to put all the robust systems in place—to improve things, and to work holistically with palliative care and other aspects of the NHS—then that is the right thing to do, and I would be open-minded to a conversation about that.

To finish, I also note that the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” guide, which is the framework of professional standards, already provides that in providing clinical care a doctor

“must refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs”.

This is what doctors do: they refer if they need extra advice; they take a holistic approach.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I just want to quickly point out that we have a check on the conversations that happen in the first stages. In clause 8, which covers the second doctor’s assessment, that second doctor must be satisfied that the individual has a “clear, settled” and, critically, “informed” wish to end their own life. So, there will be a doctor who is verifying that the person is informed properly about their options. My concern about the amendments is that, as the hon. Lady says, we are inserting now a third doctor into a system which, with regard to the panel, will already have three, four or five specialists involved in the assessment of the care.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It feeds into comments that have already been made about how difficult we are making the process. I agree that this should be a difficult process—it should be a robust process, with thorough checks, safeguards and balances throughout—but we are in danger of forgetting the dying person at the heart of the process.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish, if I may.

We need to be really careful that we take a person-centred approach, as happens now. Doctors, medical practitioners and healthcare professionals quite rightly take a holistic patient-centred approach. That approach will be further enhanced by the robust training the Bill incorporates, and by adding the extra layers of safeguards and protection. Really importantly, it would open up conversations about death and dying.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

As previously stated, my role, and that of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, is not to give a Government view, given that the Government remain neutral on the Bill, but to outline the legal and practical impacts of amendments tabled.

The amendments are intended to add a new step in the process set out in the Bill, requiring consultation with a palliative care specialist. The purpose of amendment 281 is to require a person to have met a palliative care specialist before completing the required steps and assessments to end their life. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the person has understood the full range of end of life options available to them. Our assessment suggests that the present drafting, adding a subsection to clause 1(2), would not achieve that effect without further amendments to other clauses in the Bill. The amendment would increase demand on palliative care specialists and, should Members decide to amend the Bill in this way, we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it.

Amendments 298 and 299 would require the co-ordinating doctor to have received confirmation that the person seeking an assisted death has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine about palliative care options before they are able to make a first statement under clause 7(3)(a). That would mean that a co-ordinating doctor would not be able to make a statement following a first assessment, and therefore refer a person to the independent doctor for a second assessment, unless the person had had a consultation about palliative care options with a palliative care specialist. As with previous amendments, the amendment would increase demand for palliative care specialists, and we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it, should hon. Members decide to pass amendments in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the Bill does not replace what already happens, and what Dr Cox was saying was that those conversations are already happening in a multidisciplinary way. We do not take that away.

[Naz Shah]

One of my concerns is that although the Government position in relation to the Bill, as they have said, is neutrality, the Government, in my opinion, have taken a position without an impact assessment, which might suggest that there is some ambiguity. Would the Minister therefore support redrafting potential amendments to include that? If it did specify a doctor or nurse, would the Government then, in their tidying-up, be prepared to accept that amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet; I appreciate that and am very grateful for his contribution to the debates that we have had.

I simply want to make the point that what the House voted for on Second Reading was the principle of assisted dying. What many members of the public who support the Bill think they are getting is a Bill that is safe—a Bill that is restricted explicitly to people at the very end of their life, who face extreme pain and suffering as they die; who are fully informed of what they are doing; who face no questions of external or indeed internal coercion; who have the absolute ability to understand what they are doing. Those are the things that people want to see in the Bill; those are the things that we have sought to effect through the amendments that we have tabled, and which the Committee has rejected.

Very explicitly, as a result of the rejection of these, I believe, very plainly written amendments, the fact is that under this Bill you can be depressed and suicidal and still regarded as having capacity to have an assisted death. You can be very marginalised—you can be a prisoner, you can be homeless—and still be regarded as eligible. You can have been influenced or encouraged by others and still be eligible. You can do it because you feel a burden. You do not need to be in any kind of pain. You do not need to be in the tiny proportion of cases that palliative care cannot help. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley accepted in the previous sitting, you can seek an assisted death for the sole reason of saving your family money, and you would be granted an assisted death on those grounds. The fact is that in rejecting these amendments, the Committee has decided and has demonstrated that the Bill is much wider than the campaigners portray.

I want to end with this point. I think there are two ways of approaching assisted dying—two essential framings of a Bill to legalise it. One is an autonomy Bill, which simply says that if people seek help to commit suicide, within certain broad parameters they should be able to do so, and there is no question of other people interfering with that choice; if they sign the requisite paperwork, they should be able to have an assisted death. The alternative is what we might call a safeguarding Bill—one where eligibility for the procedure is strictly limited and there are very strong, robust safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable people.

The hon. Lady, and Members speaking in support of the Bill, have repeatedly emphasised that this is a safeguarding Bill. They want this Bill to be built around safeguards for the vulnerable. They respect the arguments that we make about the dangers that an open-ended assisted dying Bill would create. But the fact is that, as we have seen in the course of the debates on this clause, this is not a safeguarding Bill; it is an autonomy Bill. It is one that allows people to proceed to an assisted death because they want one, if they meet certain very loosely drawn criteria.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The reality is that this Bill is both. Of course it is about personal autonomy, choice and dignity for people who are coming towards the end of their life, but it has to be safeguarded as well. It is both. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member makes quite an unfair characterisation of the robust, powerful debate that has taken place in Committee during the time that we have spent together. I think it has been extremely well informed. People have listened intently to other points of view and opinions, and it does the Committee a disservice to suggest otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I respectfully suggest that that is not the case and there is data. Professor David Paton found a 6% increase overall, and interestingly it was 13% for women.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would be interested to know whether that data shows a link or a direct causation effect.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I think that what has been looked at is the number of unassisted suicides. The hon. Lady makes the good point that obviously we need to look at all the different factors that could be part of that, but I am just making the point that when we look at territories that have introduced assisted dying, we find that at the point at which it is introduced, we generally see, in most territories, an increase in unassisted suicide. I do not think that we should rush to disregard that. We need to recognise that in helping a small group of people at the end of their life, which undoubtedly this Bill will do, there will be a price to be paid. That price will be paid by our young people and other vulnerable groups.

I will not vote in favour of clause 1—I do not think that there will be a Division on it anyway—but I will not oppose it either, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out. I understand that it is the key clause in order for us to progress and continue the debate, which is what Parliament wishes us to do, but I hope that the Committee will be more receptive to improving the safeguards as we progress through the Bill. The amendments really were tabled in good faith. We did our best to write them in a clear way, but obviously the private Member’s Bill process makes that more difficult. This is not a Government Bill, but we are all doing the best we can to table amendments that would improve the safety of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

all symptoms of frailty.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am interested to know where the hon. Member has got the idea that someone is going to scrap the six-month prognosis from.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, if the hon. Lady will say that she will never, at any stage, support a proposal to extend it beyond six months, I will be very glad to hear it. My concern is that we already have amendments tabled to do exactly that, which we will be debating shortly. I hope they will be rejected, but my confident expectation, on the basis of other countries, including the Australians who gave evidence to this Committee, is that the six-month safeguard will soon be seen as a barrier to a human right, because there is indeed no logical basis for such an arbitrary date.

The people who currently deal with the six-month prognosis, in the context of benefits and pensions, campaign that it is arbitrary and unworkable—rightly, I think—so I am afraid that I confidently expect the six-month barrier to be challenged in due course. If the hon. Lady is prepared to say that she would never do that, however, I would be very reassured.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Would the hon. Member agree that the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill before us? That is why we are here. I understand his concerns, his reservations and his nervousness about what might happen in future, and that is an important conversation to have, but the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill as it stands today; that should be the focus of our deliberations.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, but I simply state on the record that I believe that this is not the end, but the beginning of a wider Bill that would follow if we passed this one. I am encouraged by what the hon. Lady says, or implies: that she does not want to go further than this Bill.

My plea to the Committee is straightforward. Let us confine eligibility to the people who the campaigners talk about: those with diseases or illnesses that are genuinely terminal. We can do more to strengthen that definition with later amendments, but, first, we have to remove the gaping hole in the fence that is this term “medical condition”. Let us remove that term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Again, I am interested in that, because I would be surprised if that condition were not adequately captured by the term “illness” or “disease”. If not, we should seek further clarification, because we need to be very specific. Illness or disease has been adequate; it is adequate in the current law on terminal illness for eligibility for benefits and pensions. I await clarification on what is added by the term “medical condition”, because my concern is that it opens the door to frailty. Going back to Chris Whitty’s evidence, I am concerned at his suggestion that frailty should be an eligible condition for an assisted death.

I will wrap up shortly so that hon. Members have time to speak to other amendments, but I will quickly refer to amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley and amendment 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), which attempt to do the same thing as my amendments. They seek to protect disabled or mentally ill people, but they do so explicitly by disapplying the provisions of the Bill for those groups, or they attempt to do so. Only amendment 11 actually does, while amendment 181 fails to do so, in my view.

Let us look at subsection (3), which attempts to protect disabled people and those with mental disorders, but which, on closer inspection, is ineffective or even meaningless. In statutory interpretation, the first phrase,

“For the avoidance of doubt.”

indicates that the subsection does not add anything to the Bill except clarity. It is intended not to change the law that is being enacted by the Bill, but to clarify the meaning of the Bill. My point is that it does not add anything—in fact, it signals that the clause can be disregarded. It is like an explanatory note and not actually relevant to the Bill. Its effect therefore negates the point that it tries to make. In including it, the hon. Lady protests too much and exposes the weakness that the clause fails to overcome. It invites a court to disregard the protection it pretends to offer by stating that that protection has no force except what is elsewhere in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree with the hon. Member to some degree in terms of the legal drafting. I have been advised that the expression “for the avoidance of doubt” is not generally used in a Bill if the Bill is already clear, which this is—I have been reassured by parliamentary counsel about that—but I was keen, having met disabled people and disability rights activists, to have it very clearly in the Bill that by virtue of having a disability, a mental health condition or a mental disorder, someone would not be in scope of the Bill. It was a very clear drafting decision and I stand by that decision; I think it is the right thing to do so that we are clear who is not covered by the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; it is helpful to understand her thinking. Her amendment is an attempt to further clarify her purpose, which is to communicate that we cannot have an assisted death only because of a mental disorder or a disability. I know that other colleagues will speak to that point more explicitly.

My point is that

“For the avoidance of doubt”

is a massive signal to the courts that the subsection is meaningless. The advice was right that it is not usual to include that phrase, as it signals that nothing is being added. My concern is that it does not add anything, and the inclusion of the word “only” further demonstrates the hollowness of the protection that it purports to offer. The fact is that someone will still be able to get an assisted death because of a physical illness that derives from a mental disorder or disability. That is my concern with the later parts of the clause, but I will leave other Members to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, I mean amendment 11. Thank you, Mr Efford.

I think it will be helpful to spell out what the Bill currently says, and what it would say if amendment 11 were adopted. I will also set why the amendment would provide a much stronger safeguard than amendment 181, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 2(3) states:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only”

—I stress the word “only”—

“of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

If amendment 11 is agreed to, clause 2(3) will read:

“A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

That may seem a very small change, but it is an extremely important one.

The Bill, as presented to Parliament on Second Reading, would allow someone to qualify for assisted dying if they had a mental health condition such as anorexia nervosa and a physical condition such as malnutrition. To put it with absolute bluntness, that means that somebody with anorexia nervosa could stop eating until they suffered so badly from malnutrition that two doctors prognose that the patient is likely to die within six months. That person, under the Bill, would then qualify for assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a really important discussion and I am so glad that we are having it—some brilliant points have been made. As someone who has worked with people with anorexia, I am very aware of the sensitivities of the condition and the issues around it. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as part of this discussion, we have to consider the capacity assessment of people with eating disorders? It is a very serious mental health condition; it would require a lot for somebody with anorexia to pass the capacity threshold for making a decision of this magnitude. It is certainly the sort of instance where I would be very surprised if a doctor did not refer to an eating disorder specialist. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the condition and how the patient should be cared for holistically?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there are a set of amendments in the next group about anorexia. Let us not go too far down this road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the reporting and data around assisted dying are fundamental? That is why it is important that, if the law is to change in this country, we get that absolutely right. What we propose in the Bill is closest to the laws in Australia, and in my understanding there have been no assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about the accuracy of reporting; we do not know whether those examples were people with anorexia who happened to have cancer as well. We just do not know, and that is not good enough.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree that if the Bill is to get through Parliament, it has to have those mechanisms and safeguards in place, but I am sure we will come to those later. If we do not know with any reasonable degree of accuracy how many cases there have been worldwide, we cannot say where the majority of such cases have occurred. When we are told that there have been zero assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia, I would err on the side of caution—another witness said that there were zero deaths involving coercion.

I understand that my hon. Friend’s amendment 181 also attempts to change clause 2, but the change would still allow people to qualify for an assisted death if they had a mental disorder alongside a physical disorder. I have no doubt that this stems from a compassionate desire not to exclude—for example, someone who has mild depression and a major physical illness—but its effect is to create a major risk for people suffering from both a mental health disorder that affects their eating and a physical disorder caused by not eating. To avoid that risk, the Bill must be much more tightly worded than it was when presented to the House on Second Reading, and it must be much more tightly worded than amendment 181 would make it.

We must make it much harder in the Bill for people to qualify for assisted death by way of having malnutrition caused by an eating disorder. It is a complex problem, and I believe no one amendment will solve it completely. I have submitted two amendments with the aim of making a contribution. Amendment 11 would also make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and I urge all Members to support it.

I turn to amendment 181, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Although the Acts mentioned in clause 2 define mental illness and disability as being taken from the clear medical model, it is not clear if she is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—for instance, the social model. Someone could have a significant impairment under a social model of disability, and for the purposes of the Bill, not consider themselves to be a disabled person. Therefore, they could qualify for an assisted death, thus rendering the provision of no worth.

It is therefore unclear what my hon. Friend is similarly proposing with regard to mental illness. Amendment 11 is needed to provide assurance that if someone does have a mental illness, then it is tightly defined and would preclude them from being able to access an assisted suicide, in case the reason they are seeking it is the mental illness and not the terminal diagnosis. I will speak further on that later.

If amendment 181 was agreed to, the clause would read that a person is not to be considered terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability”.

There are two obvious problems with the amendment. First, the amendment removes references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act, which previously defined who did and did not have a disability or a mental health disorder, but having removed those definitions, it does not then define disability or mental disorder in the Bill. What definition will medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does or does not have a disability or mental disorder?

[Kim Leadbeater]

In terms of the removal of references to the Equality Act, I was not aware when the Bill was initially drafted that cancer is actually classed as a disability. Given the fact that in some countries 70% of assisted deaths are for cancer patients, it would seem ridiculous to exclude cancer patients from having the option of assisted death. I hope that goes some way towards explaining that point.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that—that is really helpful. But where does the amendment leave us in terms of disabled people? I am just trying to understand.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The concepts of a mental disorder and a disability are well understood, and those terms are well used. In the eyes of the law, we would not need to provide a definition of those in the Bill, but the removal of the reference that would include people with cancer is an important thing to do.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

I will return to that. I understand what amendment 11 seeks to do, but I think we should have a hybrid, because I do not think either amendment would completely achieve what we want. I will seek the Minister’s advice in due course. I understand the legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on this matter, and I understand that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, but I am concerned about the loopholes that could remain.

We heard on Second Reading that assisted dying will not be available to disabled people, but let us imagine an individual who does not consider themselves to be disabled. If they were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, our current legislation states that they would be disabled from the point of diagnosis. They could live with that cancer and receive treatment for a considerable time, while continuing to have no other disability. When they receive a six-month prognosis, they would be eligible for assisted dying due to the same disability they have had for a very considerable time, and it would remain the only disability they have had in their entire life. I remain concerned that my hon. Friend’s amendment still talks about disability, potentially leaving that loophole.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but the purpose of the Bill is that a person with a terminal cancer diagnosis and six months left to live would have the choice of assisted death. As we have heard, they might have seen the suffering of relatives with a similar cancer, and they might have seen what their death looked like. I understand that people might disagree, but that is the purpose of the Bill.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that point but, looking at my postbag, the people who berate me for not supporting the Bill often talk about their loved ones with motor neurone disease or Parkinson’s, which I understand from oral evidence will be exempt. We need to make it clear which disabilities and conditions will be eligible, and I am not sure that the amendments before the Committee nail it down. I am concerned that the wording would lead to potential loopholes and legal challenges.

We should still be concerned about legal review of the Bill, based on indirect disability discrimination. The Equality Act says that indirect discrimination happens when a rule, a policy or even a practice that applies to everyone disadvantages people with a particular disability, compared with people who do not have that disability, where that cannot be shown to be justified as being intended to meet a legitimate objective in a fair, balanced and reasonable way.

If we accepted this amendment to allow the inclusion of cancer and some other disabilities set out in the Equality Act, I believe it would be argued in due course that other disabilities meet the criteria for assisted dying and, despite the promises made to this Committee and to the House in good faith, the loopholes would allow the criteria to be widened.

Other amendments in this group retain the reference to the Equality Act 2010, which could equally result in legal challenges down the line, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley outlined this morning. I am not deliberately being difficult, but I am not sure that any of the amendments would completely achieve what they seek to achieve.

I await the Minister’s view on the matter but, as things stand, I am concerned that we will take the clause back to the House without completely satisfying Members’ aims. By allowing those with cancer to seek assisted dying, there could be a loosening of the rules for other disabilities. I fear there could be manuscript amendments on this matter, but I await the Government’s view on the robustness of these amendments if they were to be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She brings us back to the fundamental point made in the Bill, which is that it has to be “an inevitably progressive illness”. Eating disorders do not fall under that definition: that is very clear. I hope that that explanation and the observation that I have made on the other amendments are helpful to members of the Committee in their consideration.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will keep my comments brief, because we have had a very thorough discussion today. I will first speak briefly to amendment 123, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendment 123 would change “an inevitably” progressive disease to “a typically” progressive disease. [Interruption.] Is that the next grouping? Oh, I am peaking too soon—my apologies, Mr Dowd.

I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, but let me turn to amendments 399, 400 and 401, on the exclusion of “medical condition”, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire submitted a few days ago, before the end of the recess. I looked at them over the weekend and was very interested to hear his reasoning for them today. This is the purpose of the Committee; I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he has made some valuable points. All along, I have taken the view that this legislation must not only be the strongest anywhere in the world, but be very clear in its intentions and leave no room for ambiguity regarding who is entitled to request assistance under its provisions.

I am very comfortable with the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, but across the world—I have done lots of research into this, as I know other colleagues have—some jurisdictions use the term “medical condition” or, actually, just the term “condition”, and others do not. Many in Australia do, but in New Zealand, for example, which has a similar law to what is being proposed here, “medical conditions” do not feature, nor do they in a number of states in America.

While I do not necessarily think that it would definitely be problematic to include the term “medical condition”, I appreciate the argument that the hon. Gentleman has made. We have to be as cautious as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its purpose but does not create a lack of clarity. That point has been very well made.

The advice that I have received from officials is that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, “medical condition” does not have a clear legal definition and could therefore be seen as imprecise. That does worry me. The purpose of the Bill is clear—it is in the title. It is to give choice to terminally ill adults at the end of life. They must have a clear, settled and informed wish, and be expected to die within six months, in circumstances that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, helped to make that even clearer, and I am grateful to him for doing so.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making her points very clearly. The last words of amendment 181 are:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if (disregarding this subsection) the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”

Does that not demonstrate that the amendment does not change the test for terminal illness?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My apologies; I am speaking to amendments 399, 400 and 401. I will be happy to come back to that point at the appropriate time, but I first want to finish my comments on those amendments.

As I have said, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a good job this morning of improving the clarity of the issue. That shows that the Committee is doing its job and working effectively. I am therefore open to supporting those amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.

May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.

It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.

Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that thoughtful intervention, and I completely concede that it is not entirely clear, and there are different sources that describe it differently, which, for a non-medical person like myself, makes it difficult. There are certain websites, including NHS England, that may reference it as “progressive”, but equally I am sure that there are other sources that do not describe it in the same way. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes a really good point, and he will see that I quite often talk about things arguably being the case; I am not saying that it definitely is—I am just highlighting that there is a risk, because if people disagree on whether it is progressive, that is when we have an issue. I see this as an opportunity to tighten up any of that potential risk.

I would say the ordinary person on the street would not expect diabetes to ever fall within the definition of a terminal illness, yet there is a risk that it could do, for the reasons I have explained. That means that the drafting of clause 2 is not quite tight enough in my view.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Just before the hon. Lady moves on, we may actually have come to a very sensible position based on the other amendments we have been discussing—amendments 399 to 401. I have done a little bit of googling, and diabetes generally is referred to as a “condition”. It might be referred to in other ways as well, but maybe that would be another reason for us all to support amendments 399 to 401.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely good news. That would definitely be helpful and provide some reassurance.

Amendments 9 and 10 are essential to ensure that those people who are never intended to eligible for assisted dying under this Bill are kept outside of it. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that it is not just illnesses that can be reversed by treatment, but illnesses where the progress can be controlled or substantially slowed by treatment, that are ineligible—diabetes being the classic case, which can be slowed and controlled by treatment. Amendment 10 further bolsters that by ensuring that treatments that improve prognosis are not disregarded under clause 2(1)(a).

The problem that we have with clause 2 in its current form is that it fails to distinguish between those who are truly at the end of their life and those who only become terminal if they do not access treatment. There is no requirement for a person to be receiving medical care when their prognosis is assessed, which means that many manageable but irreversible conditions—like diabetes, potentially, and chronic kidney disease—could qualify as terminal if treatment is stopped. Let us take the example of someone with type 1 diabetes, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who tabled these amendments. If she were to stop taking her insulin, she might meet the criteria for terminal illness under the Bill and qualify for an assisted death—I mean, I certainly hope she would not. Without treatment, type 1 diabetes could arguably be an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition that would result in death within weeks or months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I agree very strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Penistone and Stocksbridge, and I hope that the Committee can later return to the state of palliative care in this country.

I underline that the matter of the six-month prognosis was not some minor detail on Second Reading; rather, it was a central plank of the arguments made by those who said that we should pass the Bill because its safeguards were the toughest of any assisted dying law in the world. It is less than three months since my hon. Friends spoke those words, and yet we are already discussing an amendment that would remove the six-month prognosis.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We need to be fair to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has said that he will not press the amendment to a Division. Indeed, it would not be something that I would support if he did do so, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated. I also think that we need to give him credit for ensuring that the voices of people with neurodegenerative conditions, such as MND, Parkinson’s and Huntingdon’s, are heard. They are an important part of this debate, whatever our views might be on the tightness that is needed in the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for making it clear that they would not vote for the amendment. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing forward an amendment that discusses those issues. However, whether it is withdrawn or not, it is an amendment that we are debating and talking to.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled the amendment, no doubt feels very strongly that the conditions of patients with neurodegenerative diseases make a case for relaxing the six-month prognosis to 12. There may well be a good case for doing so, but we can only consider the case for extending the prognosis to 12 months because of the challenges created by neurodegenerative diseases if we have first considered that extremely complex subject.

We cannot say that the Committee has studied the difficult subject of neurodegenerative diseases and how they would affect the administration of the Bill. We have not heard from witnesses on the subject, and we have not been able to ask them questions. We did solicit evidence on whether neurodegenerative diseases would affect the ability to self-administer lethal drugs, but we have not had time to study the written evidence.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not going to press the amendment to a Division, which leaves some of what I wrote earlier obsolete. I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them to the best of our ability. I certainly try to do that, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley always tries to do that—I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and all others are trying to do that. We vow to represent our constituents, and had the amendment gone to a Division I would not have been able to support it, simply because we cannot make those difficult decisions without being properly informed. We cannot make up our minds to change the Bill because of a complex set of diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Actually, there is nothing in the Bill that suggests that. We can only imagine and try to empathise as much as we possibly can with any person who has been given a diagnosis of six months to live. In that six-month process, they might not wait; as my hon. Friend, who is a doctor himself, has said, this is about autonomy. They might not wait until they get to a position where there is a lot of suffering; they might not wait to see those six months out. They might decide they do not want to take that risk, when actually they might have lived another 15 years, another year or another two years. That is the point of this amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is good to have this debate. May I ask her opinion on two things? One is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has alluded to, the research around the world shows that between 30% and 40% of people who sign up for assisted death never actually do it, because they do get better or because the treatment makes their condition manageable—or because they have a death in a different way. What are her thoughts on that? The other thing to point out is the number of people who we know, sadly, are taking their own lives because they are terminally ill at the moment. I go back to the point that I make quite regularly: no one is monitoring that—

[The Chair]

Order. As I said before, these are interventions seeking clarification. They are not mini-speeches.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. If we take that 30% to 40% figure, and the figure—she might correct me if I am wrong here, and I am happy to be corrected—that there are about 600 people on average going to Dignitas, for example—

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is people taking their own lives.

[Naz Shah]

Sorry—would my hon. Friend like to intervene?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Just to clarify, my understanding is that it is between 600 and 700 people who take their own lives; it is suicide.

[Naz Shah]

If we take that number, then that 30% or 40% who do not take that decision is maybe a few hundred people. However, the truth from Professor Sleeman’s evidence is that we are talking about thousands of people who are misdiagnosed every single year. She was talking about 3,516 who lived longer than expected. Yes, I recognise and value my hon. Friend’s comment that 30% or 40% of people do not take up assisted dying, but—perhaps I will talk about this when I move on to the next amendment—there is also a risk. If we go back to the Bill promoter’s intention to make the wording tighter, then surely this is a safeguard that she would support, just to ensure that we are making it as tight as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Actually, it was the other way around and I am happy to provide a reference to the right hon. Gentleman. Nine cases found lack of capacity, but still not in the best interest. One of the girls was 19 years old. The judge found that they lacked capacity to make decisions about their treatment. The question of whether they had the capacity to decide to end their life is completely different and not something we have asked judges to rule on before. The judge’s ruling clearly implied the capacity to refuse force-feeding even if it resulted in their death. I am happy to provide the references for that. It was against their best interest to force-feed them. Tragically, in nine of the 10 cases the judges accepted that that would inevitably lead to the deaths of those young girls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has repeatedly stressed that her Bill is modelled on the Death with Dignity law in Oregon.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Actually, I have not said that.

[The Chair]

Order. With the greatest respect to Members, this is not a dialogue; this is a debate. This is not chit-chat. It is a very serious issue and interventions of that nature are not helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. If something is said that we know not to be correct, what should we do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member invites me to suggest that I think it would be possible to draw a safe safeguard. I do not. I think that one month is better than six months, because with one month we can have more accuracy and doctors are more genuinely right when they say that someone is close to death at that point, while six months is much more inaccurate and 12 months is notoriously inaccurate. If we restrict the Bill by using a time limit, that limit should be as close to death as possible in my view.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to reduce it to one month, there would be absolutely no way to have the robust process set out in the Bill—or, indeed, I would argue, to have any sort of robust process?

[Danny Kruger]

I accept that, which is why amendment 282 is probing only. It is trying to demonstrate the point. I recognise that even the expedited process is likely to take up to a month to get through, so that would be difficult. Nevertheless, if our intention is to restrict this to people who are literally in their last days, which is frequently what we hear, I think it would be appropriate to restrict the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am just talking about the amendment to reduce the time from six months to one month. I will come on to the issue of eating and drinking in a second.

As amendment 282 would reduce the time within which the person is expected to die from six months to one month, it would also limit the number of people with a terminal illness who would be eligible for assisted dying under this legislation. Furthermore, there may be very challenging workability issues in delivering a service within one month, given the other time-dependent safeguards elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment 51 would remove the requirement for the patient to have a six-month prognosis to be defined as “terminally ill”. If agreed to, it would expand the pool of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life beyond those with a life expectancy of six months or less. In other words, it would remove the timeframe requirement of when death can be reasonably be expected.

Amendment 234 would widen eligibility to include cases of neurodegenerative diseases, illnesses or medical conditions where a person is reasonably expected to die within 12 months. Matters such as this are for the Committee, and ultimately for Parliament, to decide, but it is clear that the effect of the amendment would be to broaden the number of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life under this legislation.

Amendment 10 would provide that, if treatment exists for a person’s progressive illness, disease or medical condition that alters the overall prognosis of that person’s condition, they are not terminally ill and would not be eligible for assisted dying services.

Amendment 402 would exclude a person who would not otherwise meet the definition of “terminally ill”—namely, being diagnosed with an inevitably progressive illness with six months or less to live—if that person meets that definition as a result of stopping eating or drinking. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent a person from being defined as “terminally ill” as a result of their own actions of stopping eating or drinking, or both. The Government’s analysis suggests that this may also exclude people who are terminally ill under the definitions of the Bill and who are, for various reasons, unwilling or unable to eat or drink. For example, it may include those with conditions such as oesophageal cancers, which could result in their being unable to eat or drink.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether someone who is on intravenous fluids or being fed through a feeding tube would be considered to have stopped eating or drinking under the amendment. I think that addresses the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, but she is welcome to intervene again if she would like to. The amendment could therefore lead to uncertainty over the person’s eligibility for assistance under the Bill.

The Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. Questions around the definition of terminal illness and who should be eligible to access voluntary assisted dying under the legislation are matters for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by various Members.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Colleagues will be pleased to know that, despite my copious notes, I do not intend to speak for very long, because I believe we have had a very thorough and robust debate on these issues. The Minister makes a valuable point on amendment 402, which I do not think anyone else raised. Coincidentally, it relates to the person in the Public Gallery this morning, whose mum had a horrible form of cancer and had to have her tongue removed. She would have stopped eating or drinking, but it was not a choice; it was an inevitable result of her condition. She would have been excluded from having an assisted death, which I am sure is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

We have had an excellent debate and covered a lot of ground. I do not intend to add anything more on this group of amendments. I will only say that if we get a move on, we might be able to get through clause 2 before we close at 5 o’clock.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert

“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

I feel that the Committee has been through these points quite extensively. There is clearly a disagreement in our beliefs; I accept that, but it is very important to make the Bill as simple as possible, because that is the best safeguard. I believe that the Mental Capacity Act is the right test for whether people have capacity. I reiterate that if there is a doubt in the clinician’s mind, there should be an avenue to get an expert opinion on capacity.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend reassured, as I am, that although we are focusing here on one conversation, we know from the provisions in the Bill that there will be multiple conversations? There will be a doctor, a second doctor, a psychiatrist, and then oversight by an expert panel. It is not just one assessment of capacity; there are multiple occasions. Does that reassure my hon. Friend, and hopefully other colleagues?

[Dr Opher]

It does reassure me, and I think it should reassure other Committee members. Having eight different people doing a capacity assessment is a very thorough safeguard for capacity. We have gone through the arguments many times in this Committee, but I do not feel that changing the polarity of mental capacity will do anything to make patients in this situation any safer. That is why I do not agree with the amendment. For fear of being interrupted any more, I think I will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I really want someone to explain this point to me: how can it make it more unsafe for patients to state the safeguards explicitly? How can it possibly make it harder, or more dangerous, if we specify what—as the hon. Gentleman said—is good practice currently, which the best doctors already do? I greatly respect him and his medical practice, but is he really saying that every doctor conforms perfectly to the GMC guidance? There are obviously clear problems with the way in which some doctors operate, and this is uncharted territory. Surely for the sake of doctors, as well as patients, it would be appropriate to specify explicitly how they should conduct these assessments, what communications they should make and what patients should be properly informed of. I cannot see how that makes it more dangerous.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I want to concur briefly with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud; I have done a lot of research into this, believe me. We have the GMC, the British Medical Association and organisations that represent medical practitioners. They have very lengthy codes of conduct and behaviour codes. What we cannot do—and I have tried—is to include all that in the Bill, and we have to be cognisant of that in some of the amendments that we make.

[Danny Kruger]

I challenge the hon. Lady, and I would welcome her response to this: we clearly can specify some things that can be done, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has done in half a page with amendment 50, which clarifies explicitly what information the patient should receive and what they should properly understand. How does including this list of pieces of information make the Bill more dangerous for patients?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not saying that this amendment would make it more dangerous, but it would overcomplicate things. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud was making. We need to have a very clear piece of good law, and I think the Bill already covers the points in amendment 50 and others, which I fully appreciate have been put forward in good faith. It is the clarity of the law that sometimes has to be the focus. I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire on safeguards, but unfortunately I feel that we will probably never get to a point with the Bill where he is happy with the level of safeguards, and maybe he is prepared to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

It is unlikely that I would ever vote for an assisted dying law but, if we are going to have one, I want to make it as safe as possible, which we all want. On those terms, in the spirit of a Bill that is going to pass, why not include these specific pieces of information? The hon. Lady says that, while it would not make the Bill more dangerous, it would overcomplicate it. Again, how does it overcomplicate it to add a few clauses specifying information that must be clearly communicated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree that when an independent doctor comes to assess a patient’s capacity and sees them for the very first time, they are more likely to be influenced by the assessment made at the beginning by the doctor who has known them for many days, weeks or months. I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear, the word “independent” means independent of the other doctor, not independent of the patient. The independent doctor could well know the patient. I hope that that clarifies that point.

[Sojan Joseph]

But it could be the other way around. The Bill does not clarify that the second doctor would know the patient at all.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not guaranteed.

[Sojan Joseph]

It is not guaranteed. I am grateful for that intervention.

We have talked about training for all registered professionals who will be involved in the capacity assessments. As someone who has carried out that training many times, I draw the attention of the Committee to Dr Rachel—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree. As part of the code of practice, professionals are expected to complete the training that has been outlined already, but I am not confident that that is actually happening. Saying that there will be training does not reassure me that it will be robust enough.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire seemed reassured by the fact that there will be training in the Bill—it is on the face of the Bill and will therefore definitely take place—

[The Chair]

Order. Can Members address the Chair, not turn to face other Members?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am pretty confident that an amendment is going to be tabled, if it has not been already, that would change that “may” to “must” in the clause on codes of practice.

[Sojan Joseph]

I would be happy to see the Bill make a strong case that the people who will take part in this process have training before they do so.

My larger issue is around the independent doctors. Again, I will use some examples of how the Mental Health Act 1983 has been carried out in its current format. Those cases always use a section 12-approved doctor, who is a second doctor and they may not have had any kind of contact with the patients. We may or may not end up in that sort of similar situation. That is the point I was making earlier.

As the Royal College of Psychiatrists mentioned, capacity can change and decisions are opinions with margins of error. I mentioned my experience working in mental health wards earlier, and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire talked about the capacity assessments carried out when patients are standing by or threatening to jump off a bridge. I am not comparing these situations or saying that they are similar, but we have to make decisions based on capacity. In my experience of discharging people from hospital in a mental health unit, when somebody is threatening, “I’m going to kill myself if you discharge me”, the multi-disciplinary team—the doctors and the nurses—have to make a decision on whether to discharge the patient based on their capacity at that time.

Capacity is assessed based on whether someone is able to understand information—can they retain, use and weigh information, and can they communicate their decision? We cannot compare that with the situation of somebody asking for assisted dying. I want to make it clear that the capacity assessment is the key. I would love to support this amendment. As I said earlier, this issue was one reason I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, but passing this amendment might change my position and I would love to support it.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will speak specifically to amendment 50. I fully appreciate and accept the points made on a number of occasions during this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—that many proposed changes either already feature in the Bill or are the current course of practice for doctors and other medical professionals. As I have said previously, I am not generally in the business of supporting amendments that, in my view, overcomplicate issues, are ambiguous and could lead to other consequences or are simply repetitious, but I do not think that amendment 50 would do those things.

Some proposed amendments are featured in the Bill, either directly or implicitly, but I do not see how amendment 50 would overcomplicate or lead to ambiguity. It is a quite direct and, dare I say, common-sense ask that we should all support. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire on proposed new subsection (2)(f) of clause 3, as inserted by amendment 50, though I confess I did not read it in the same way that he did. I read it as saying that anyone looking to go down this route should be made aware of the legal consequences. That is a sensible suggestion.

I do not expect a doctor would be going into people’s bank accounts or deeply understanding their legal affairs, but due consideration, advice and information should be imparted to the person who is applying. That is how I read it; I did not think it would be a hugely intrusive, in-depth study into a person’s personal finances.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it could be a problem and an area of concern if we have two Members who have both read an amendment but have different interpretations of it?

[Jack Abbott]

Potentially. There are certain words and clauses on which everyone will come to very different conclusions. This has been the case throughout the entire Committee process, which is approaching its 16th sitting now. It has already been said that this provision could be tightened up, and I welcome the Ministers’ input in helping us to understand their position on aspects like this.

In my view, there is nothing in amendment 50 that specifically says, “This would be an intrusive look at someone’s personal finances.” The measure—on the advice that would have to be given—is a proportionate one. Yes, it could be reasonably argued that proposed new subsection (2)(c) to clause 3, as set out in amendment 50, has already been covered under things that we have discussed extensively, such as coercive control and pressure. Equally, I do not think that any of the language in the amendment would necessarily overrule any other issues or make them more ambiguous. From that point of view, I will be supporting the amendment. I do not think there is anything in it that would override or lead to complications with any other part of the Bill, but it does put in black and white on the face of the Bill some of the very basic processes that should be happening.

I appreciate that many of the points in amendment 50 are already happening or feature directly or implicitly in the Bill. However, I do not think there is any harm in the amendment; in fact, given the nature of what we are talking about and the fact that this legislation is unprecedented in this country, we should be very clear and direct. I do not think it will lead to confusion for our medical profession. These are straightforward and common-sense asks. On that basis, I will be supporting this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Bill has a two-year commencement date. Within that two-year period, the Secretary of State will make regulations to determine precisely the kind of training and capacity building that are required, and that training will be delivered within that two-year period. Those sorts of issues will be dealt with if the Bill gains Royal Assent.

Clause 3 sets out that any assessment as to whether a person has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life is to be determined in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, sections 1 to 3 of which establish the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. Section 2 of that Act establishes that a person lacks capacity if they are unable to make the decision in question, owing to an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. Section 3 states that a person is unable to make a decision if they are unable to

“understand the information relevant to the decision…retain that information…use or weigh that information”

as part of the decision-making process, or communicate their decision.

As the Committee will be aware, the Mental Capacity Act has for some time provided a robust framework for important and difficult decisions, and it is familiar to clinicians. I hope that my remarks have been helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I welcome another good debate on capacity, following our thorough deliberations a couple of weeks ago. In that debate, I made my views on the Mental Capacity Act quite clear. Although I have listened intently to colleagues’ contributions today, it remains my view that this well-established piece of legislation is the right vehicle for assessing capacity for the purposes of the Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Daniel Francis]

I will not speak for long. I spoke in great depth about my amendment and other amendments this morning.

Over the past few weeks, hon. Members will have heard, long and hard, about where I come from on the clause stand part issue. This has been one of my greatest difficulties. It drove me to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and I continue to have grave concerns that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not written for this scenario. I draw Members’ attention to my exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud this morning when, on decision making in the Mental Capacity Act, it was accepted that it has to be presumed that somebody has capacity, and in those scenarios a doctor must assist in the decision-making part of the process.

My great concern—I am sure we will continue this debate when we come to clause 4—has been around people with learning disabilities, and that is where I have ended up in this place. I have said this before and I am sure I will say it again in my contributions: people may think that I have a vested interest, but actually my daughter will never have the capacity to make these kinds of decisions. I am here in this Committee because hundreds of thousands of people in this country are involved in family decisions where a child or a loved one does have enough capacity. The Mental Capacity Act was rightly written to allow them to live independently, buy a coffee and do their banking, but I do not believe it was written for this scenario, so I will support the amendments.

I presume that the amendments may well be rejected. I look forward to discussing, in due course, the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because they bring us into a scenario that does exist in the medical field, in respect of discussions with the doctor. As things stand, I will support the amendments. Unfortunately, I will oppose clause stand part simply because I continue to believe, as I did on Second Reading, that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not written for this scenario.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak briefly to amendment 368, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I thought it was an interesting amendment to table, not least because I witnessed the introduction of the Down Syndrome Act 2022 by our colleague—sadly, now former colleague—Dr Liam Fox. He was a casualty of the last general election and is a great loss to the Chamber. His successor should certainly feel guilty about what he achieved, in my view; I am not sure that everybody would share that view, but there we are.

The Down Syndrome Act was an important private Member’s Bill that sought to recognise the status of people with Down’s syndrome in society and to sensitise institutions to their welfare and wellbeing. Essentially, it provides that guidance should be issued by the Government to various institutions across the health service and civil society generally, that would be used to accommodate the needs of and be sensitive to dealing with people with Down’s syndrome, particularly as they reach adulthood.

Although I am sympathetic to the amendment’s aims, there are a number of issues with it. I think its objectives could be, and frankly should be, addressed in other ways. Essentially, my reading of the Down Syndrome Act is that it is aimed at institutions such as health trusts and local authorities, not at individual practitioners. Unfortunately, under that Act, which asked the Government to issue guidance on Down’s syndrome, no guidance has been issued. We have a rather good legislation website in this House that tells us whether a Bill has had an impact or had any effect. If we look up the Act on it, the website tells us that there has been no effect yet. Certainly no guidance has been issued.

I am concerned about the interplay between the Down Syndrome Act and this Bill. However, there are opportunities where we can recognise the particular needs of those with Down’s syndrome, who will often be life-limited because of their condition. That needs to be taken into account. Amendment 394, which refers to advocates, will be important from that point of view, and new clause 8, which will hopefully be agreed to—I will certainly be supporting it—includes a duty to consult in regulation. I invite the Minister to make a commitment in his winding-up speech that groups representing those with Down’s syndrome would be part of the consultation package. I am sure that that is perfectly doable.

Clause 30, which deals with codes of practice that the Government will issue, and clause 31, which mandates the chief medical officer to produce guidance for medics and some of the training that will be required, should include modules on dealing with individuals with Down’s syndrome. I do not know whether anyone is intending to press amendment 368, and I do think that there are problems with it, but my undertaking is to go away and talk to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about what could be done, perhaps at a later stage.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak to the amendment shortly, but will the right hon. Gentleman take a commitment from me that I will happily join him in those conversations if it is at all helpful?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. It would be fantastic if she did that. However, I think we could probably deal with the intent of the amendment if the Minister were willing to commit—it is not a big commitment to make—that in the making of regulations and in the instructions to the CMO to produce guidance, he will stress the importance of consulting those with Down’s syndrome and dealing with the issues that they face, notwithstanding the impact of new clause 8 and amendment 394, and recognising that there is no guidance yet under the Down Syndrome Act. That might be a more belt-and-braces approach to what the amendment is trying to achieve than hoping that that Act and this Bill will interact in a beneficial way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is making an important point. As someone with friends who have children with Down’s who, as he says, absolutely have very fulfilling lives, I hear every word that he is saying. Will he take a commitment from me back to those organisations? I commit personally to meeting them, perhaps alongside the right hon. Members for East Hampshire and for North West Hampshire, at a time convenient to them.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and am sure that that will be welcomed. It does rather go back to the point that the organisations made at the outset, which is that they wish they had had more consultation earlier on, but I understand why that was not possible in all cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that all 600 would be averted by the Bill. He might be right that some would be, and I recognise that. However, the purpose of amendment 270 is to ensure that people who might be suicidal receive an assessment, whether they are inclined to apply for assisted death, if it is legal, or to take their own life in an unassisted way. If they expressed a wish under the clauses of the Bill to have an assisted death, they would have proper psychosocial assessment and proper steps would be taken to ask, if we are prepared to make this distinction, “Is it just that they are suicidal and not wanting an assisted death?” I find the distinction difficult to parse logically, but if that is the distinction that we are making, let us put it into the Bill and ensure that people are properly cared for in that very dangerous time after they get a terrible diagnosis.

I would like to quote from the written evidence that we received from a member of the Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, which is a user-led charity for those with muscle-weakening conditions such as muscular dystrophy. This person said:

“I’ve been there, I’ve wanted to die, and I’ve been in the position where I would take that option if it was given to me”—

not if it was not. Interestingly, he would have taken that option if it was given to him, rather than suggesting that he was going to take his own life anyway. The quote continues,

“but looking back I can see I was depressed and now I’m so glad that I didn’t take that option.”

At the moment, the Bill does not require anyone to explore these psychosocial factors, and although the person can be referred to a psychiatrist—and, if we go on to accept the amendment, we would ensure that they must be if the doctor concludes that there is doubt—I do want to make a point about referrals. There is an assumption that the doctor will refer the person to a psychiatrist, but that will only happen if they have done their assessment well. We are assuming that they will do the assessment well, but we have heard repeatedly that such assessments are often not done well. I welcome the coming amendment—amendment 6—that says that if the doctor concludes that there is doubt about capacity, they “must” refer. That would be a step forward, but it is not sufficient. Even the psychiatrist will only answer the question, “Is this person able to make a decision?” That does not address any of these other factors.

In Oregon—we refer often to Oregon, and although this Bill is supposed to be the safest in the world, it is not as safe as Oregon in this respect—the doctors may refer the patient for counselling if the patient

“may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment”.

To conclude on this point, psychosocial care is fundamental to good end-of-life care. Members of the Committee have said that palliative care and assisted dying can complement each other; this assessment should be part of that picture, and it needs to come before the first declaration, because once somebody has signed that declaration they are already on the pathway—and there will not be an obligation on them to receive palliative care advice either, because we rejected that amendment. Amendment 270 provides for people’s needs to be met at the first opportunity.

Lastly, on the question of doctor-initiated conversations, I quote Professor Brassington, who submitted evidence to the Committee:

“In normal medical practice, the patient approaches the medic with a problem, and the medic suggests possible courses of action, not all of which would have been considered by the patient. The patient permits further action. But it is implicit that the practitioner who makes the suggestions thinks them good, and the patient is entitled to think that the practitioner endorses them all.”

In a normal scenario, the doctor would think about what is good for the patient. To raise an option is to endorse and encourage it, perhaps as one among a number of other options. It is to suggest that this is a good option—it might not be the one the doctor thinks is the best, but it is a good option for the patient; otherwise, they would not raise it. They can only make a recommendation for options that they consider would be appropriate to the situation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, I fundamentally disagree, although I will stand corrected by medical colleagues. I do not think that the doctor in this instance is making any suggestion; what they have the responsibility to do is to lay out the options, but it is up to the patient to choose. I would imagine—again, I will stand corrected by medical colleagues—that that is standard practice.

[Danny Kruger]

This is an important debate to have, because the clear implication of a doctor making a recommendation is that this option would be good for the patient. It is one of many—

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not a recommendation.

[Danny Kruger]

Indeed, it is not a recommendation; but in laying out this option for the patient, the doctor is clearly communicating that it might be the right thing for the patient to do and that it might address their needs. If the suggestion is that they are making a suggestion that might not be good for the patient, then that is of serious concern to us, is it not? The clear implication of current law—with reference specifically to Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board, which determines that we have patient-led medicine in this country now—is that a doctor is obliged to set out all the options that he or she thinks might be appropriate to the case. That goes back to the question about whether we regard assisted dying as a healthcare intervention, but if we do regard it as one, then if it is suggested, it is because it might be the right thing for the patient to do. Implicitly, there is a suggestion that it could be the right option for the patient.

It is interesting that clause 4(1) disapplies Montgomery and says that a doctor is not obliged to make this suggestion. That poses the question: is it therefore a treatment at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. Either this is a medical treatment—in which it should be obligatory for a doctor presented with a patient who qualifies under the Bill and has the symptoms that we are talking about to say, “By the way, there is also this option”, which is what I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is suggesting—or it is not a healthcare treatment at all. Clause 4(1) states that they do not have to raise the subject, in which case they should not raise it, because to raise it is to put it on a par with other healthcare options and therefore implicitly, or indeed pretty explicitly, to say, “This is an option that might be good for you”, which is an enormous communication to make.

I go back once again to the difference between this and withdrawing treatment. I have to say this so many times because it is so important: this is not equivalent to withdrawing treatment because this is not specific to the illness being treated. A person can have a treatment or not, and that will address the condition that they are suffering from. The termination of life does not address someone’s symptoms, treatment, condition or illness; it kills them. It is a different order of intervention. I do not think it is a healthcare treatment at all, and it should not be treated as such.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member makes a valid point about the circumstances in which this option would be considered a valid choice for a patient. That brings us back to the fact that we are talking about someone who is going to die; the question is how they are going to die. It is not someone who is going to get better—they are not going to wake up and find that everything is going to be fine. This is about what that death looks like.

Pat Malone—one of our witnesses in oral evidence—had a brother who had seen his father die under circumstances so horrible that he had begged his children to help him die. Then the brother got the same condition and could see what his death could look like. Does the hon. Member not value the choice that assisted dying would give that patient to take back control of what their death could look like, with their loved ones around them? This is a very real situation for, sadly, lots of people, and could be where that choice could be valid.

[Danny Kruger]

I was not asking for cases in which it might be the right choice for somebody—I recognise the argument there. I am asking when it might be appropriate for a doctor to suggest it. In the case of the Malone family, if this law had been enforced, they would have requested it themselves. Again, I want to know under what circumstances it would be best for the patient—in their interests—for an assisted death to be suggested to them by a doctor, when they had not raised it themselves. Under what circumstances might that happen?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The concept of a suggestion is also not particularly accurate—it is a choice, in the same way that the other options are a choice. Families could only ask for this conversation if they knew about it, and while we are all living and breathing this Bill at the moment, even if it does come to fruition and the law is changed, there will be people who do not know about this option. Surely, it would not be informed consent for a person to suffer a horrible death if they were not told about this option.

[Danny Kruger]

On the suggestion that people will not know that this option is on the table, who are we talking about in those circumstances? I suggest we would be talking about people who are extremely marginalised, and I would be very concerned about a doctor suggesting an option to them. There may be a tiny number of people who would not know that this option is legal, but I am afraid it would be very widely known the minute that it is law.

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

I will certainly give way in a moment. An enormous number of people will be dragged into the scope of the Bill by suggestions being made to the vulnerable people that we are concerned about. I really do invite her to answer this as honestly as she can; does she not accept that being given this option by a doctor—given the doctor’s position of power and the vulnerable position that the patient is in—could well be interpreted as a suggestion that this might be a good thing for them to do? Does she does not recognise that?

--- Later in debate ---

If the Bill becomes law, it will mark a departure from previous practice in revolutionary ways, so we have to consider the possibility that it should also depart from the previous practice, in which doctors should be able to discuss all pathways with their patients. I think it should, and the key factor for me is the testimony given to the Committee by palliative medicine specialists: doctors like Jamilla Hussain and Rachel Clarke.

[Kim Leadbeater]

In the interests of balance, would my hon. Friend also acknowledge the testimonies we heard from Dr Jane Neerkin, Dr Sam Ahmedzai and other palliative care specialists who had a very different view?

[Naz Shah]

I do acknowledge that, but ultimately I am a Member of Parliament for my constituency of Bradford West, and we have a doctor who has been doing research with its communities. I come from a community where there is huge deprivation: Bradford West has two of the most deprived wards, and one of the youngest populations. During covid, people there were DNR-ed—so they do not have that confidence.

I accept that others may have different opinions, but I come back to the point that I made earlier: which case is more convincing? Do we raise the safeguards? Dr Jamilla supports assisted dying but she made it clear that, although she supports it for some people, who may well benefit from assisted death, the truth is that there are people who the Bill fails to protect. That is what I am speaking to, and that is what amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, speaks to.

The Committee is talking about people who are facing the ends of their lives. On every day of their working lives, doctors who have spoken to this Committee talk to those people. They are treating exactly the kind of patients who may seek assisted dying if the Bill becomes law. They are deeply concerned that if doctors raise the subject of assisted dying with their patients it will, in too many cases, seem like a suggestion.

I appreciate that this is a private Member’s Bill and not a Government Bill, but that places an even heavier burden on us to get things right. We cannot ignore the testimony of those who have the most relevant experience. Too many Government Ministers, MPs and local councils from all parties, including mine, have done that in recent decades.

For example, the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses said for years that the Horizon system was not working, but Ministers from my party, and from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, said that they were wrong. Time and again, they were dismissed. Ministers thought that they knew more than the people who were using Horizon on a daily basis. Now we know exactly who was right.

Similarly, for three decades, several thousand NHS patients, mainly haemophiliacs, claimed that they had been negligently given transfusions of blood infected with hepatitis and HIV. Minister after Minister, first from the Labour Government of the ’70s, then from the Conservatives, then Labour and then the Conservatives again, insisted that no such thing had happened. Some conceded that perhaps it had happened—but on a small scale. In 2017, to her credit, the then Prime Minister Theresa May announced a public inquiry into those claims. It turned out that the patients were right and the Ministers had been wrong.

That is what I am talking about. Several highly experienced palliative medicine doctors warned us—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

The challenge is the dissonance in how the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act, which is currently very close to publication, is directed towards authorities such as trusts, but there is no coverage around individual doctors. At this stage, without seeing a clear distinction between the two or how it would work for individual doctors, the Department’s concern is that it could create confusion as to the obligations on individual medical practitioners under the 2022 Act. I am obviously open to conversations about how to clear that up, but the lacuna between the authorities and the individual doctors is the problem being flagged by the Department.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I take the Minister’s comments on board. Will he agree to a conversation with me and with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who tabled amendment 368, to take the discussion forward?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am happy to have conversations with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, but as things stand it is not clear to the Department or to me how the proposal would work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is for the wider debate. I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendments relate to the initial discussions with medical practitioners, and it is important to highlight that clause 4(1) states:

“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person.”

However, subsection (2) states that

“nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered medical practitioner exercising their professional judgement”.

Doctors and healthcare professionals, like any other group of people, hold a range of views on assisted dying. We need only reflect on the oral and written evidence to see that. However, the British Medical Association has a neutral position on assisted dying, and its representatives were very clear when I met them, and in oral evidence to the Committee, that they wanted an opt-in model for doctors to provide assisted dying, as well as the right to decline to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying, for any reason. These requests have therefore been incorporated into the Bill.

The BMA was clear in its submission that it opposes amendments 8, 124 and 276, as well as amendment 342, which we will come to later. It said that adding a prohibition or limiting factors in the Bill would

“create uncertainty and legal risks for doctors, which may inhibit effective doctor/patient communication and understanding.”

It welcomed the Bill’s provision that a doctor is not under a duty to raise assisted dying, which it felt was necessary to avoid any suggestion that doctors have a legal duty to raise it. It was concerned that these amendments would remove that provision, leaving doctors in a position of legal uncertainty. It said:

“If doctors are concerned that they may be legally obliged to raise assisted dying with all potentially eligible patients, this will impact on how, when, and by whom the issue is raised…It is essential that decisions about when and how to discuss assisted dying are made on the basis of what is best for the patient—rather than to avoid legal challenge. All patients deserve to have this important and sensitive conversation with a doctor who is confident, competent and happy to have the discussion…Doctors should be able to talk to patients about all reasonable and legally available options; a provision that limits or hinders open discussion about any aspect of death and dying is likely to be detrimental to patient care. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgement to decide when and if a discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on all other issues.”

That is the BMA’s position, and I agree.

As Duncan Burton, the chief nursing officer for England, said in oral evidence to the Committee,

“it is clear that there is increasing discussion in society around death and dying, and I think that is important. It is important that we have discussions and support people with their choices at the end of life, so anything we can do to increase that is important.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 41, Q22.]

Dr Ryan Spielvogel from California told us:

“People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors…even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 105, Q143.]

He strongly advised against not allowing doctors to discuss patient choice, because in his experience that really hampers their ability to take care of patients. Dr Jessica Kaan of End of Life Washington reiterated the point:

“It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 106, Q143.]

In the light of our recent discussions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the current BMA guidelines regarding patient requests for assisted dying. Those guidelines will obviously need updating if the law changes, but they are comprehensive and give us a much greater understanding of the approach that doctors take when speaking to terminally ill patients, as well as what these hugely sensitive conversations look like, which is really important to know.

The BMA guidance addresses situations in which patients make an explicit request for doctors’ assistance in or information about ending their life or hastening their death. I will refer to that guidance now. The guidance advises the doctors to

“Explore the patient’s feelings, emotions and thoughts….It might be helpful to discuss their understanding of their condition or their fears and concerns…If you feel that the patient is depressed or suffering from another mental health condition, or would benefit from more support, therapy or counselling should be offered.”

Doctors are also advised to

“Use the opportunity to address those concerns: you should also investigate whether other practical arrangements could help improve the patient’s quality of life. Involve a colleague: you might like to involve a more experienced colleague—making clear to the patient that this is what you will be doing.”

The guidance also talks about involving other sources of support:

“you might like to seek support and input from other members of the healthcare team, such as a specialist palliative care team, colleagues from mental health, or the chaplaincy or voluntary services.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady says that the GMC states that doctors have an obligation to raise the treatment options before them, and I think that she thinks that this is a treatment option. Surely the obligation is on doctors to raise assisted dying in all cases where it may be an option for the patient. Does the hon. Lady agree that doctors should offer assisted dying when that treatment may be appropriate for the patient?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree that, under the provisions of the Bill, the doctor will have a duty to lay out options available to the patient, if they meet the eligibility criteria—absolutely. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a very clear answer. I just want to be totally clear that we understand each other. Is she saying that every doctor facing a terminally ill patient—someone who is eligible under the Bill—should make clear to them that they have the option of an assisted death?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.

We can see from the guidance that currently exists that doctors take a very sensitive and patient-centred approach to end-of-life conversations. If the law were to change, that approach would continue with additional training specifically related to assisted dying, as has been discussed. It would also mean that the issues that doctors currently face around discussing assisted dying would be addressed.

As the BMA says, at the moment

“The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide…What if a patient wishes to travel abroad for assisted dying? While the act of travelling abroad for assisted dying is not illegal, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging someone to do so is a criminal offence…doctors need to be aware of the possibility of legal and professional sanctions if they were to do so.”

I imagine that that must create a real sense of jeopardy for doctors. Similarly, the GMC recognises that doctors will face challenges in

“ensuring that patients do not feel abandoned”,

while ensuring that the advice or information that they provide does not encourage or assist a person to end their own life.

These are very difficult conversations for patients and doctors, but by legalising assisted dying in this country we can give clear guidance through a robust legal framework, and create the thorough, transparent process that is currently lacking. These conversations provide a safeguard while the person is still alive. As the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Max Hill, told the Committee,

“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]

Mark Swindells from the General Medical Council told us:

“We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q36.]

Bringing those conversations out into the open has to be better for the patient and the practitioner.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

With reference to amendment 8, and further to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, can my hon. Friend reflect on the provisions as set out in clause 4(1) and (2), which say that the issue relates to doctors’ professional judgment and that doctors are under no obligation to raise those issues in any situation?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely. This is about professional judgment, which is what the BMA is really clear about. Doctors have to be able to use their professional judgment. They are not under any obligation to raise the issue, but they are not under any obligation not to raise it. The BMA is really clear about that. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I welcome amendments 319 and 320 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I thank him once again for his positive engagement with the Bill. He raises a very valid point about the initial discussion. While the Bill is very clear that it applies only to terminally ill adults over the age of 18, in that someone would have to be over 18 to make the first declaration, it is not clear that the initial discussion could also not happen with someone under the age of 18.

We should not prohibit open conversations with terminally ill young people and their families, as they create openness, transparency and safeguards and provide much-needed support at what most of us can only imagine must be the most difficult time of anyone’s life. However, I think it should be made clear that the actual assisted dying process cannot be embarked upon unless someone is over the age of 18. I have taken advice about how best to incorporate that into the Bill from a drafting perspective. As a result, I have tabled amendment 418, which applies to clause 5, and states that regulations must provide that the first declaration contain, among other things,

“a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion”.

As such, the aim of amendments 319 and 320 is achieved. I hope that that is to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

With regard to amendment 339, I have listened very carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it, and the evidence from Mencap chief executive Dan Scorer, who suggested that for terminally ill people with learning disabilities

“that initial conversation has to be incredibly well supported and structured…the person should have accessible information in advance of that discussion so that they are fully informed about all their rights in terms of treatment options at end of life”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280.]

I absolutely agree with the intention of the amendment. I am seeking advice on the legal and technical implications, as I believe there is some tightening up that would need to be done around some of the phrasing, such as the concept of “sufficient time” or what would constitute a “supporter”. I therefore cannot support the amendment as it stands, but I am very happy to look at ways to take this forward and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the amendment, which, quite rightly, gives special consideration to people with autism and learning disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is also considering tabling amendments that would have a similar effect; perhaps we could all meet together.

I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that I am considering the involvement of people with learning disabilities, and groups representing them, in the development of guidance and training on assisted dying and end-of-life conversations. As Dan Scorer said,

“people with a learning disability should be involved in the development of that guidance” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 281.]

I absolutely agree.

Amendment 368, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, has been discussed this morning. I sought advice about it as it was new to me. I believe that no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Down Syndrome Act, so we lack detail. That Act resulted from another private Member’s Bill; I am sure we can all agree what an excellent process this is for making important changes to the law. As the Minister said, the amendment is likely to be unworkable for doctors so I cannot support it. I would, however, be very happy to discuss the thoughts of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire and look at how we can meet his objectives—possibly through an addition to new clause 8, which is about the duty to consult and the Secretary of State consulting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At that point, the specific needs of not just people with disabilities but those with other protected characteristics will be represented. Alternatively, we could look at the codes of practice in clause 30.

I am happy to take those discussions forward and may even be able to speak to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire at the drop-in session he is doing this week with the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, ahead of Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week.

[Kit Malthouse]

As the hon. Lady will know, a number of our proceedings have been misinterpreted, shall we say, on social media. For complete clarity, with regard to the initial conversation, the Bill leaves to the discretion of the doctor whether it is appropriate to raise the matter, given their knowledge of the patient. They have no obligation to raise it. If the patient themselves indicates a wish to raise the matter, then a doctor is under an obligation to lay out all the options available to that patient. We would not want to leave the outside world with the impression that, in all circumstances, the doctor is obliged to raise the option of assisted dying. It is only when they professionally think it is appropriate or if the patient raises it with them.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I have said, the BMA has been very clear that doctors should use their professional judgment. For example, if they had a patient whom they knew to be deeply religious and who had no interest whatsoever in an assisted death, it is highly unlikely that they would raise the possibility. It is up to them to use their professional judgment to accommodate the wishes of the patient. It has to be a patient-centred approach.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am done.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

We have had a good debate on the amendments in this group. I do not intend to push amendment 278 to a vote, and I have nothing further to add to my previous remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 20 and insert

“shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person who has not indicated to that or another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life”.—(Daniel Francis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I just want to let the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that I met my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet last night, and I am delighted to support her amendment 108.

[Danny Kruger]

I am very pleased to hear that. That is very encouraging news, because I have been concerned that the hon. Lady was resting her case on amendments to clause 12, which would not require a palliative care specialist. I am grateful to her for intervening to inform us of that.

Nevertheless, we need to go further. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) would require that a specialist, rather than just a GP, leads the initial assessment. The fact is that despite their enormous range of expertise, general practitioners are not qualified or confident in making prognoses of terminal illness. The written evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland cited a 2021 paper showing that over half of GPs were not consistent in how they applied their predictions to different patients. It is important that specialists in the relevant conditions should be involved in these assessments so that patients receive expert input with a lower risk of error.

It is significant that, during the Second Reading debate on 29 November, the House was unanimous in its appreciation of, and praise for, palliative care specialists. It seems strange that their expertise should not be considered essential to a terminally ill person’s consideration for an assisted death. When we look at other countries, we see that it is not an exceptional safeguard. South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021 specifies:

“Either the coordinating medical practitioner or each consulting medical practitioner must have relevant expertise and experience in the disease, illness or medical condition”—

we are not using that any more—

“expected to cause the death of the person being assessed.”

I urge the Committee to reflect on the South Australia model, which is good in this regard.

I turn to amendment 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and amendment 275, in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Bill currently requires doctors to discuss “available” palliative care options, but that may limit what patients are told. Amendment 275 would provide that patients should be informed of “all appropriate” palliative care alternatives, even if they are not readily available in their local area. We do not want patients choosing assisted dying simply because of unequal geographic provision of palliative care making them unaware of alternatives that could improve their quality of life.

I would go even further in support of amendment 53, which hits the nail on the head. Fundamentally, we have always said that assisted dying should be available only to people who palliative care cannot help. That is what amendment 53 entails: it states that assisted dying should be available only for people for whom the relevant palliative care is actually an option and, if they decline it, that would be their choice.

Finally, I will speak to amendments 425 and 426 in my name, which express the need for a proper multidisciplinary team at the right stage of the assisted dying process. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has emphasised the importance of multidisciplinary teams, and I welcome everything she said. It is very good to get her agreement, through the amendments that she has tabled, that two doctors working alone are not enough to protect and support every patient. I welcome that recognition.

Amendments to clause 12 attempt to fill this gap by introducing the expertise of a psychiatrist and a social worker, but they do not fulfil the role of a multidisciplinary panel. Rachel Clarke, one of the witnesses who told us to consider multidisciplinary assessments, has written subsequent to the amendments being tabled: “A ‘judge plus’ panel”—there will not actually be a judge, so perhaps we should call it a “lawyer plus” panel—

“is not an MDT…the panel’s scrutiny comes only at the end of the process, not at the beginning, when a patient first asks for the intervention of assisted dying. Yet this is a moment of peak vulnerability.”

We will get on to the question of whether a judicial panel should replace a High Court judge, but I emphasise very strongly that the introduction of this process is not the equivalent of having a proper multidisciplinary team considering the application for an assisted death at the appropriate moment.

As the Association for Palliative Medicine said last week, the Bill

“does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.”

It said that the panel is too distant from the patient and comes too late in the process. It said that the Bill would be stronger if the initial assessments were

“carried within a multi-professional team model”.

It is at the stage we are debating here—in the initial assessments—that the MDT needs to apply. For the record, if it has not been properly noted before, I also state that when the hon. Member for Spen Valley quoted Dr Sarah Cox on the importance of multidisciplinary teams, Dr Cox was not endorsing clause 12, but explicitly arguing for earlier introduction of the multidisciplinary process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear on the multidisciplinary approach, the point that I was making in that contribution was that that happens already. We are misrepresenting what goes on in current practice with terminally ill patients if we say that there is not a multidisciplinary approach, as indeed various witnesses told us. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is what witnesses told us, but we need to ensure that it happens in all cases; the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that good practice is universal. In the case of assisted dying, bad practice would be terrible. Of course, good doctors seek the guidance of others and do not operate in isolation, but the Bill would allow them to do so. It is important to ensure that the system lives up to the good practice that she refers to.

Committee members will be glad to hear that I am not going to rehearse the arguments about capacity and coercion, but those concerns are why it is important to have a multidisciplinary team at an early stage. The Committee has rejected all attempts to strengthen the capacity test, but it could at least allow a psychiatrist to have an earlier role in the process of checking for capacity. We heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of doing that, and that is what National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states. As the hon. Lady said, it is good practice, so as Professor House said in his evidence to us, it would not be “a terribly radical thing” to do it.

On coercion, as the social worker Jess Carrington wrote to us:

“The only people who are comprehensively trained to recognise signs of abuse, in particular, coercive control, are social workers.”

According to research by Dr David Ross, doctors suspect less than 5% of cases of elder abuse. I will not rehearse the arguments around coercion, but I hope that the Committee will note that the only way—or the best way; it will not be foolproof—to ensure that coercion is spotted is by having a social worker at the very beginning of the process.

I think that is enough from me, Mr Efford—I am sure you agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the amendments, especially amendments 342 and 425. We have discussed various aspects of the Bill, especially capacity, coercion and medical practices, under many previous amendments. As somebody who worked as a mental health nurse for many years, and who worked as part of a multidisciplinary team, I think that amendments 342 and 425 are some of the most important.

Amendment 342 talks about the preliminary conversation with the medical practitioner with whom the patient makes contact. Do we not think that the doctor who knows most about that patient is the best person to have that preliminary discussion? They will have the most information about them. When the patient, who has gone through so much difficulty, goes to their doctor or to a GP who knows them well and says, “I would like to choose the assisted dying pathway,” would that doctor then say, “I do not want to discuss this. Somebody else will.”?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the concept of conscientious objection? The BMA strongly opposes amendment 342, because it does not think doctors should be obligated to have that initial conversation if they do not want to.

[Sojan Joseph]

There are other people who support this concept, and they are the people who will be having the conversation—we have both sides of the argument. I believe that the best person to have that preliminary discussion would be the doctor who knows about that patient the most—about their circumstances, prognosis, family situation and pain. We talk about compassionate care, but where is the compassion in here? I am not saying that another doctor would deny that—but I am talking about compassion. Someone going through the most difficult time in their life would have the confidence to talk to the person who knows the most about them, which is why I fully support that the initial discussion should happen with them. I am not saying that they should say yes or no, but they should be talking about the care provisions and options available to the patient. Amendment 342 is one of the most important amendments we will debate.

I will move on to amendment 425. When I tabled amendment 1, my thinking was that a psychiatrist should be involved in these discussions, but I think amendment 425 will safeguard most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sittings. Amendment 425 talks about a “multidisciplinary team” and having a psychiatrist involved as well. Written evidence was sent to us on 29 January by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which recommended that a separate pathway that

“covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines…who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central spoke earlier about how patients may be going through many multidisciplinary teams already, but it could be that none of those multidisciplinary teams have talked with them about assisted dying. They could have been pharmacists or nurses talking about the patient’s care—not assisted dying. We are talking about setting up a multidisciplinary team with a mental health nurse, doctor and social worker who can look in detail at evidence of the patient’s capacity, whether they are choosing it because they feel they are a burden, and whether there is any coercion. I think that is a safeguard for most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sessions. I would love to see a psychiatrist involved, because psychiatrists deal with some of the most challenging patients, including those with suicidal thoughts, on a day-to-day basis. They are the most experienced people to carry out a capacity assessment and, if they are a part of the multidisciplinary team, it will safeguard the Bill.

I strongly support amendment 425 and I urge Members to consider it. It will reassure many people who are concerned about some of the discussions. I know it also talks about giving power to the Secretary of State to formalise who should be part of the multidisciplinary team, which would be a discussion for later. I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

When we broke at 11.25 am, I was talking about amendment 108. Clause 4(4) sets out that a registered medical practitioner who conducts the preliminary discussion on assisted dying must, as part of that discussion, explain and discuss

“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 108 would supplement that with a requirement for the registered medical practitioner also to offer to refer the person to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other such care for the purpose of further discussion.

The amendment would add an additional level of specificity to the preliminary discussion on palliative, hospice or other care, but would not in itself place a duty on the registered medical practitioner to make such a referral, or on the person to accept it. In considering whether the amendment is required, the Committee may wish to note that the General Medical Council’s good medical practice already requires doctors, when providing clinical care, to refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs.

As the Committee is aware, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on several amendments to ensure that the Bill is legally and operationally workable and reflects her policy objectives. Amendments 183 and 424 are two such amendments.

The purpose of amendment 183 is to emphasise, not change, the existing provisions in the Bill that provide that the preliminary discussion held with the person by a registered medical practitioner must not discuss assisted dying in isolation. Rather, the discussion must reference the matters contained in clause 4(4), including

(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 424 seeks to clarify the meaning of “preliminary discussion” in clause 40, to align that with the description of the discussions in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 4. It is a drafting change. As per subsections (3) and (4), a preliminary discussion takes place between a person seeking the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill and a medical practitioner, about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided. The preliminary discussion must include

“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 425 would introduce a requirement that a person seeking assistance under the Bill is referred to a multidisciplinary team to consider support and care for the person. The Secretary of State may provide regulations to determine what kind of professionals should make up such a team, but the amendment would require that at a minimum each team should include a medical practitioner or nurse, a social worker and a psychiatrist. The obligation to refer to the multidisciplinary team would apply each and every time

“a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act”,

so there could be multiple referrals. Finally, I note that the amendment might have wider resource implications, including for social workers.

Together, amendments 53 and 54 propose changes to clause 7—rather than clause 4, which we have been considering so far today—the effect of which would be that in carrying out the first doctor’s assessment, the co-ordinating doctor must, in addition to the other requirements, be satisfied that the person has relevant and available palliative care options. As such, the amendments would mean that people are eligible for assistance to voluntarily end their own lives only when they have relevant and available palliative care options. The amendments would create an additional criterion, which may reduce the number of people able to receive an assisted death, linked to the availability of palliative care services to any given individual.

Amendment 426 would prevent the co-ordinating doctor from finalising the first assessment process until they had received confirmation from a multidisciplinary team—as set out in amendment 425—that the person seeking assistance to end their own life had met with the multidisciplinary team. The Committee may wish to note that under the amendment there would be no requirement on the multidisciplinary team to provide that confirmation in a given timeframe. That might lead to delays in the co-ordinating doctor being able to make their statement and onward referral.

Amendment 286 would remove the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 9(2) and insert three new requirements. The three new conditions require the assessing doctor, for both the first and second assessment, to consult specialists in relation to the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatments available and the likely effect of those treatments, and any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.

The Committee may wish to note that, as drafted, amendment 286 might have some unintended consequences. That is because by replacing clause 9(2)(a), (b) and (c), it would remove the words

“explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”

at clause 9(2)(b). Consequently, the amendment would remove the requirement for the assessing doctor to have a discussion with the person about the factors currently set out in clause 9(2)(b). The assessing doctors would also not be required to examine the person and their medical records, and to make other inquiries as they consider appropriate.

The amendment could also lead to a significant loss of essential discussion between the assessing doctors and the person seeking assisted dying. The removal of clause 9(2)(b) would eliminate the requirement to explain and discuss the diagnosis and prognosis, treatment options and palliative care. Additionally, the amendment would remove the requirement to discuss the person’s wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance, which may be seen as important for fully informed decision making.

I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because we have had another very thorough discussion. First, my amendment 424 is, as the Minister said, a simple drafting change in clause 40 that confirms that “preliminary discussion” means a discussion as per clause 4(3).

Amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central would, in many circumstances, broaden the scope of the conversation that the doctor would have with the patient, and I am happy to support it.

I am also happy to support the very sensible amendment 108 from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). It is perfectly acceptable to ask the doctor to offer to refer the patient to a specialist, as they would probably do in most cases anyway, but the amendment is for clarity.

I refer colleagues to the comprehensive comments on my amendment 183 earlier in proceedings, and also to the support of the British Medical Association. Following Second Reading, I listened carefully to Members’ concerns about the possibility of doctors only discussing assisted dying with patients. Even though the Bill states that that cannot be the case, for the avoidance of any doubt the amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). Accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—that is, doctors cannot discuss the option of assisted dying in isolation but only in conjunction with discussion about all other available and appropriate treatment.

Indeed, Andrew Green of the BMA told us that

“some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind.”

He asked us to

“please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 42, Q24.]

That concludes my remarks.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 270, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment requires that the doctor ensures that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am happy to have that discussion, to better understand how it might all work in practice.

If amendment 415 is agreed to, it will mean that an assessing doctor making an assessment under subsection (2) must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters. As with amendment 414, the Committee may want to note the existing standards that all medical practitioners must uphold, which include requirements for the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers.

Amendments 416 and 417 would amend clause 30, which states that the Secretary of State may issue codes of practice on a number of matters, including on arrangements for ensuring effective communication and the use of interpreters. The amendments would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to issue one or more codes of practice in connection with arrangements for ensuring effective communication, including the use of interpreters, and to do so within six months of the passing of the Act. The requirement to issue any such code of practice within six months may prove unworkable. Under clause 30, it would be necessary to consult on the code of practice, make regulations to allow for the code of practice to come into force, have the regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament and then issue the code of practice, all within a six-month period after the passing of the Act.

As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on whether or how the law in this area should change. As I have made clear, that is a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to members of the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled to it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On amendment 413, from the right hon. Member from Plaid Cymru—with apologies, I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce the wonderful name of her constituency—I am very sensitive to issues around devolution. We have had many conversations about it, which I am very happy to continue. The Minister has confirmed, as I understand it, the issue around the Welsh language, in that it would be covered by the Welsh language legislation, which states that individuals in Wales

“should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so.”

I am very supportive of that. I am also happy to continue those conversations, where necessary, with the Minister.

I turn to amendments 414 and 415. I think several Members of the Committee have had the same message from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was clearly struggling to get here on time. I, too, would be happy to move them in his name. They seem very sensible amendments, and I am happy to support them. Along with the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, which sets out the principles, values and standards of professional behaviour expected of doctors, it is a belt-and-braces approach to an issue that is very important, for reasons that several hon. Members have set out.

I cannot support amendments 416 and 417, however, because the timeframe that they would impose would not fit with the rest of the Bill. In reference to the two-year implementation period, that would just not be workable or possible.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will not press amendment 413, because I anticipate further conversations on these matters.

Amendment 414 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,

(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will speak to this group of provisions as one, given that amendments 71 to 80 are consequential on new clause 4. The purpose of these provisions is to create a new statutory body—the assisted dying agency—which has the purpose of co-ordinating requests from people to be considered for assisted dying. The provisions provide for various functions and duties of the agency, including assigning a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor to a person seeking assistance to end their own life.

The agency would be responsible for accepting referrals, replacing registered medical practitioners with the roles of assigned co-ordinating doctor and assigned independent doctor, and receiving and recording declarations, statements and cancellations made by co-ordinating doctors, independent doctors and those receiving assistance under the Bill.

That would be a change from the current provisions in the Bill, which place a number of those duties on the individual co-ordinating doctor and independent doctor. One effect of the proposed new clause is that a new agency would have to be established by the Government. If it passed, we would have to work to assess how that might be possible in practice.

I hope my brief remarks are helpful to Committee members in considering the Bill, the amendment and the new clause.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire; I do not think any of us on the Committee are keen on the implementation of the assisted dying agency.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

Amendment 345 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon); I referred earlier to her record in this area. The amendment would ensure that medical practitioners record and document preliminary discussions with a patient about assisted dying and provide the patient with that information. I welcome the amendments from the Bill’s promoter to make records of the first and second doctor’s assessments. Those safeguard patients and the process. It is important that we have transparency and clarity on such weighty decisions.

Several people raised in their written evidence the importance of good documentation. These amendments meet those concerns. I assume that not including a record of the preliminary discussion is merely an oversight by the Bill’s promoter. The amendment seeks to do what she says she wants to do—protect patients and doctors—by making records of the discussions.

In written evidence TIAB55, Professor Allan House suggested that

“It should be required as it is in all other areas of medical practice, that specific written records are kept of this assessment and of procedures followed to end life—not just the substances used. The written record to be included in the person’s medical record so that it is available to the Medical Examiner. Records also to be available at appraisal to enable assessment of the quality of the process.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Will he take note of my new clause 19, which is in this group and states that the preliminary discussion has to be recorded?

[Sean Woodcock]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of my next question: why would we record and document later conversations, but not the initial one? That conversation could be one in which coercion takes place and without a record of it happening, patients and doctors are at risk. We have acknowledged that patients can be influenced by their doctors, whether consciously or unconsciously. We also noted how certain groups lack trust in the healthcare system. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in her written evidence, TIAB252, explained that the various inequalities faced by certain communities

“contribute to mistrust in health and social care services”

and that

“minority patients frequently express fear of having their lives shortened by healthcare providers, especially at the end-of-life with medication such as morphine and midazolam.”

In situations where patients are uncertain or lack trust in medical professionals, a record of the initial conversation is important to protect everyone involved. As Professor House stated, documenting the process and making records is common medical practice, so why would we differ here? We must protect patients and doctors, and making clear records at every stage of the process contributes to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think it reflects the fact that, as the Committee has agreed, we are in uncharted territory on a whole range of issues here. I think it is best to think through the implications of every amendment. If it passes, every clause of the Bill will have to be assessed for its potential impact. I have other questions about amendment 297 in my notes. Does it intend to capture only the consultations between the co-ordinating doctor and the patient, or does it intend also to capture conversations with relevant persons other than the person seeking an assisted death? That is not clear from the amendment. What I am saying is that it poses more questions than it answers.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that a patient could ask for access to their medical records at any point. On the basis that new clause 19 requires the doctor to record a preliminary discussion, presumably, if a patient wanted to see that record, they would be able to.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. As I stated at the start of my comments, officials have worked with her on new clause 19, which I think goes a long way to clearing up many of the points that have been raised, including hers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The Government’s view is that if the Committee accepts it, then that new clause will provide the level of robustness and resilience that the system requires. The Government are not convinced that, on its own, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is talking about would provide the level of robustness and resilience we would be looking for. As things stand, the choice has been made to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19, and we are satisfied that that would provide us with the operational integrity we need.

Amendment 302 would require the independent doctor to provide details of the way in which the second assessment was conducted, alongside a written transcript of any consultation to the relevant chief medical officer and the person’s GP. The independent doctor would be required to maintain a copy of that record to provide to the relevant medical examiner.

As I have mentioned, in executing our duty to ensure that the Bill, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The new clause would require a practitioner to include a record of a preliminary discussion having taken place under clause 4. The record of the preliminary discussion must be included in the person’s medical records. Where the medical practitioner is a member of the person’s GP practice, they must make such a record in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable. Where the medical practitioner is not a member of the person’s GP practice, they must, as soon as practicable, provide a written record of the preliminary discussion to a medical practitioner at the person’s GP practice, who will then be required by the new clause to include it in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable.

The Committee may wish to note that amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the Bill that would make it clear what discussion medical practitioners would be required by law to record.

That concludes my remarks on this group. I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak briefly to my new clause 19, which refers to the recording of the preliminary discussion. It would require the practitioner to include in the medical records of the person in question a record of a preliminary discussion under clause 4. The initial discussion with the patient is very important and, as such, should be recorded in their records. I hope that colleagues agree and will support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore support amendment 341, which seeks to remove the requirement to refer and replace it with an obligation to direct the patient to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion. The amendment is in line with the written evidence we have received, so I hope that some Committee members will join me in supporting it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for those important points. I reassure her, and possibly other Committee members, that I am minded to support amendment 341.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 412 would remove the duty in clause 4(5) on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct that discussion. Guidance for medical professionals requires that, where a practitioner objects to performing a procedure, they must refer the patient to a practitioner who can meet their needs.

Amendment 341 removes the duty on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom they believe is willing and able to conduct that discussion. The amendment requires the registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion with the person to instead ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.

New clause 13 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to create, via regulations, an independent information and referral service for individuals who are, or may be, eligible under the Bill for assisted dying services. The accompanying amendment 338 would require a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to direct the person, upon that person’s request, to another registered medical practitioner or to the information and referral service, as set out in the new clause. The effect of this amendment is to remove the obligation in clause 4(5) for the registered medical practitioner to refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the initial discussion. This amendment would make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. In addition, these amendments could carry an operational impact, as the new service would need to be designed and brought into existence.

Amendment 287 would mean that, if the first practitioner is unable or unwilling to conduct the preliminary discussion, they must, upon request, refer the person to a registered medical practitioner who is qualified to undertake the preliminary discussion. They must also set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end-of-life care, including referring the person to a palliative medicine expert. This amendment removes the duty in clause 4(5) to refer to a practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the preliminary discussion.

As with previous amendments, this language could make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. It is not clear what

“qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion”

is intended to mean. In addition, the term “palliative care expert” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for this speciality, provided they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. I hope these observations are helpful, and I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak to amendments 341, 338 and 412 together, and I welcome the debate on these important amendments. Choice is one of the key tenets of the Bill, primarily—but not exclusively—for terminally ill adults with a limited time to live. Choice is also very important for medical practitioners, and I am very respectful of, and acknowledge the importance of, conscientious objection for doctors. When it comes to assisted dying, I believe that they should also have choice. Indeed, the Bill is written so that they can choose not to participate in the process for any reason. That is the BMA’s view, and I agree with it.

The BMA has a position of neutrality on assisted dying, and there are a range of views within medical professions, as there are within all groups of people. That is why I have adopted its position of an opt-in model for the purposes of the Bill. Nevertheless, the process must remain patient focused at all times, and that means enabling them to have a discussion on such an important matter. It would not be right to rely on online advice or even the best-designed written materials. As we have already established, doctors are used to having sensitive and compassionate discussions with people who are terminally ill, and there can be no substitute for that. While a doctor may not wish to participate themselves, and I fully respect that, they still have a responsibility towards their patients, and that should include ensuring that they can speak to a properly qualified medical practitioner at such a difficult time.

I understand that the BMA and others would not be comfortable with the word “refer”, which I understand to have a special meaning within medical practice. The GMC guidelines use different language. They talk about where a doctor has a conscientious objection, in which case they are advised that they must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over their role. The BMA’s guidance says that patients must be able to see another doctor, as appropriate, and that it need not always be a formal procedure. It is not, however, sufficient to simply tell the patient to seek a view elsewhere—I agree completely.

The BMA supports amendment 341, which says that a doctor

“must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”

I am therefore happy to support the amendment today and, if it were to need further adjustment, I am very happy to consider alternatives based on existing best practice. I would be very happy to meet with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who is herself a doctor, to discuss her thoughts and draw on her considerable medical experience.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert

“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As amendments 125 and 126 are consequential on new clause 7, I shall speak to them as a whole and not in turn. The purpose of the amendments appears to be twofold. First, they seek to restrict the role of medical practitioners who can hold an initial discussion to those who have completed training. That training would be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations and would make them eligible to be listed on the register of assisted dying medical practitioners.

Secondly, the amendments seek to apply the same principle to the co-ordinating or independent doctor. In addition, they would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that would create the register to sit outside or alongside the current system of registration of medical practitioners and set out the training requirements to be eligible to be listed on the register.

Both sets of regulations are to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making them. The regulations making provision for the relevant training requirements must be laid within six months of the passing of this Act. The regulations establishing the register must be laid within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

Although the purpose of the amendments is clear, our assessment suggests that the drafting would not achieve the desired effect, because the register would include only those doctors who have not undertaken the specified training or who have opted out of the assisted dying service. Additionally, the suggested timeframe for laying regulations is unworkable, given the need to work with regulators and the proposed duty to consult. There are also significant operability concerns regarding the creation of a new register for a subset of registered medical practitioners.

I hope that the Committee has found those observations helpful. I thank Members for their attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

[The Chair]

For clarity, amendment 125 is not being pressed to a Division, as I understand it. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe withdraws amendment 125, there will be an opportunity to vote on amendment 126 and new clause 7 later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have made it clear throughout the debate that I am not offering a Government view on the merits of amendments. My remarks are focused much more on the legal and practical impacts of amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

The amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire. They would create a further eligibility requirement of the person seeking assistance under the Bill. Amendment 271 and 272 would limit those eligible to seek assistance to end their own life, in circumstances where their terminal diagnosis was received less than six months prior to the date on which the person signs the first declaration, to those who have received a psychosocial intervention. This would be subject to any exceptions provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations. Amendment 271 does not define what is meant by “received a psychosocial intervention” in relation to their diagnosis.

The term “intervention” is usually employed in the health service to mean the provision of support or treatment. This is different from, for example, an assessment that a clinician might undertake to assess whether an intervention may be required. While there is not a standard definition of psychosocial intervention, we understand it to mean psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy. The amendment could create uncertainty as to what type of treatment a person will need to undergo to satisfy the requirement. If a person who would otherwise seek assistance to end their own life under the Bill is unable to, or does not wish to, receive a psychosocial intervention, unless an exemption applies, they may need to delay starting the assisted dying process until at least six months has elapsed from their terminal diagnosis. That could be challenging in circumstances where the terminal diagnosis has a prognosis of six months or less.

The amendment would also introduce a requirement for people in certain contexts to undergo an intervention that could undermine a person’s autonomy in making their own treatment decisions. Were the amendment made, it would confer a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to create exceptions to the proposed provisions on psychosocial intervention. Regulations made using this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to issue a code of practice in connection with the form of the psychosocial intervention required.

If the Committee decides to accept the amendment, further consideration would be needed on Report to ensure that it is operationally deliverable, and my earlier comments about the definition of psychosocial intervention and other comments would have to be clarified. The Government would, of course, stand ready to assist were the amendment to pass.

As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed—as I have made clear, that is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations have been helpful, and thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central and those of the Minister.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 29

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 4

Noes: 16

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 184, in clause 5, page 3, line 7, leave out “Schedule 1” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a first declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 1).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 289, in clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out “another person” and insert “another registered clinician”.

This amendment ensures that the second witness is a registered clinician.

Amendment 418, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must provide that the first declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they meet the initial conditions for eligibility (see subsection (2B));

(ii) a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion;

section 4(4)(a)

(iii) a declaration that they are content to be assessed, for the purposes of this Act, by medical practitioners;

(iv) a declaration that they are making the first declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(v) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the first declaration at any time.

(2B) In subsection (2A)(b)(i) ‘the initial conditions for eligibility’ are that the person making the declaration—

(a) is aged 18 or over,

(b) is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months, and

(c) is registered with a general medical practice in England or Wales.”

This amendment makes provision about the content of regulations under subsection (2)(a), which will set out the form of the first declaration.

Amendment 277, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A person may not make a first declaration under subsection (1) until 28 days have elapsed, beginning with the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.”

This amendment would mean a person could not make the first declaration until 28 days from the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.

Amendment 420, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) After carrying out the first assessment, the coordinating doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (4));

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed (‘the assessed person’),

(ii) if the coordinating doctor is not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iii) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(c) if satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g), refer the assessed person to another registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of section 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out the second assessment (‘the independent doctor’).

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g);

(b) contain an explanation of why the coordinating doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iii) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the coordinating doctor.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to make a report about the first assessment, and (if satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)) to refer the person to another practitioner for the second assessment.

Amendment 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.

Amendment 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;

(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.

Amendment 220, in clause 34, page 20, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g);

(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e);”

Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed,

(ii) the coordinating doctor,

(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);

(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;

(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”

This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.

Amendment 203, in clause 10, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

“(A1) This section applies where the independent doctor has—

(a) carried out the second assessment, and

(b) made a report stating that they are not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 421.

Amendment 204, in clause 10, page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 44.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 203.

Amendment 329, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 4 from the clause and is linked to Amendment 330.

Amendment 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).

Amendment 330, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) A second declaration must include the following information—

(a) the name and address of the person;

(b) the NHS number of the person;

(c) the contact details for the general medical practice at which the person is registered;

(d) a declaration by the person that they have made a first declaration under this Act;

(e) a declaration by the person that the assessing doctors have made the appropriate declarations under this Act together with the dates of those declarations;

(f) the details of the declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;

(g) a declaration by the person they are eligible to end their life under this Act;

(h) a declaration by the person that they wish to be provided with assistance to end their own life under this Act;

(i) a declaration by the person that they understand that they must make this second declaration under the Act and that they do so voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.

(j) a declaration that they understand that they can cancel their declaration at any time.

(k) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the requirements for the second declaration by the person and is linked to Amendment 329.

Amendment 331, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 5 from the Bill.

Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).

Amendment 332, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) A statement made under subsection (6) must include the following information—

(a) a declaration by the coordinating doctor that the person is terminally ill within the meaning of this Act and the nature of the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) details of any relevant declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;

(c) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is of the opinion that the person’s death is either likely or unlikely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the declaration was made by the High Court or Court of Appeal under this Act;

(d) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements of this Act regarding any period of reflection has been met;

(e) a declaration that the person requesting assistance under the Act has the capacity to do so, and that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life;

(f) a declaration that neither the first or second declarations by the person have been cancelled;

(g) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(6B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the requirements for the second statement by the coordinating doctor and is linked to Amendment 331.

Amendment 333, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment leaves out reference to Schedule 6 and is linked to Amendment 330.

Amendment 214, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out “Schedule 6” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a final statement is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 6).

Amendment 334, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The statement mentioned in subsection (2) must include—

(a) the contact details of the coordinating doctor;

(b) the name, NHS number and medical practice of the person given assistance under the Act;

(c) a declaration that the person was provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act;

(d) the date of any declarations made by the person under this Act;

(e) the date of any statements made by assessing medical practitioners under this Act;

(f) the details of the advanced and progressive condition the person had;

(g) the approved substance provided;

(h) the date and time of death;

(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death;

(j) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the information that must be included in a final statement under this Act and is linked to Amendment 333.

Amendment 403, in schedule 1, page 25, line 25, at end insert—

“7. I have—

1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration

2. decided not to inform my family of my decision

3. no family to inform of my decision”.

Amendment 404, in schedule 4, page 29, line 7, at end insert—

“10. I have—

1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration

2. decided not to inform my family of my decision

3. no family to inform of my decision”.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to support my amendments in this group, which seek to clarify the details that must be included, under regulations, in the first declaration, and the report that is consequent on that declaration. While I believe it was useful on Second Reading for MPs to be aware of the content of the form that the doctor should complete, the advice I have received—with which I agree—is that the details are more appropriately a matter for regulations. There is always a balance to be struck, but it would not be reasonable to expect the House to have to consider changes in primary legislation simply to alter the contents of a declaration, important though the details are.

The proposed changes go further in a way that I believe should greatly reassure the Committee. As we discussed this morning, they make it clear that a person must have been over the age of 18 when the first discussion under the Bill took place. They also require doctors not just to make formal declarations, but to produce reports covering the eligibility of the person to request assistance, the nature of the assessments they have made, their discussions with that person and, crucially, the person’s understanding of those discussions and of what the process entails. This will ensure that all the relevant discussions have been recorded and understood, and that an account of them has been recorded and will be available for future reference. For reporting purposes, if a person applying for assistance is found not to be eligible, that information will be recorded too. I hope the Committee will agree that further safeguards will be put in place as a result, without imposing additional stress or burdens on terminally ill patients during such a different period.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 184 and to point out that I have now withdrawn amendments 329 to 334, so we will not vote on them later. Like the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I had thought that although it was sensible at Second Reading to have schedules to the Bill that laid out the forms, they were quite limited and strict in their form, so we needed more flexibility and the opportunity for the House, by regulation, to add content to the required forms in the future. I also wanted to insert a declaration by the person that they had had an initial conversation covering all the factors in the Bill and, critically, that they understood the information that had been presented to them. Amendment 184 would do exactly that.

For Members’ reference, I tabled similar amendments that would have done the same with the other schedules. Following conversations with the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I have now withdrawn them all and amalgamated them into amendments that would do the same as those that she has tabled, along with some additional bits and pieces. Amendment 184 is relatively self-explanatory.

I want to speak against amendment 277, which would impose a time limit of 28 days between diagnosis and the first declaration of a terminal illness. In a lot of circumstances, that would be a very difficult time delay for people to face. As the hon. Member for Bradford West, who tabled the amendment, will know, there are already periods of reflection in the Bill, although it also contains provision for a compressed time limit for those who face imminent death. Particularly for those who are unfortunately diagnosed with certain diseases, adding 28 days will insert a delay at a time when people who are facing what they do not want to face—a horrible death—need as much time as they can to get through the process. For example, if we take together all the factors for people who are sadly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the median survival is six to 12 months.

I do not know if the hon. Lady knows this, but pancreatic cancer is a particularly unpleasant cancer, not least because it does not exhibit symptoms in its early stages—people do not know they have it until quite late in its development. Treatment for it is not well advanced, and many people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer sometimes have only weeks to live. The idea that we should make them wait 28 days before they can even start the process seems impractical and, I am sorry to say, cruel to them in many ways. It is worth remembering that this is not a six-month “bang, I go and do it.” Most people who have a terminal illness will begin the application process at six months. Once they have the ability to ask for this service, they will then wait until they decide that their life has come to its end, at the time and place of their choosing. That might be at six months, or it might be at six days. The point of the Bill is to put the power to make that decision in their hands. Although the Bill has periods of reflection—it recognises that people need to sit and think about these things—imposing an absolute 28 days on everybody, without accounting for what stage they are at in their disease and how long they have to live, is not necessarily a sensible amendment, and I will oppose it from that point of view.

I understand the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire in tabling amendments 403 and 404, which are about informing family. I would hope that those are the sorts of discussions that doctors would have—perhaps one of the doctors on the Committee can tell us. On whether we should put that on the face of the Bill, I have been persistent in trying to make sure that the conversation is not guarded. The amendments ask whether I have any family—I am not quite sure what “family” means. Does it mean my children? Maybe I do not want to tell my children. Does it mean my next of kin? I do not know. Is it distant relatives? Is it my whole family? There are problems with the definition of “family”.

While I will not support the amendment, I understand what my hon. Friend was trying to do. I would hope that those are the kinds of sensitive matters that a doctor would tease out of an individual as they look for the various items that we have put in the Bill to make sure that the person is making the decision on a sound basis as a settled view and has the capacity to do so.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 20, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

The key point for me is that doctors are not specialists in coercive control, but this amendment would give them training to spot abusive and coercive relationships, which are difficult to detect. Domestic abuse and coercive control have a disproportionate effect on women and disabled people, and if doctors just rely on their experience to detect coercive control and abuse, they are more likely to miss cases. Some doctors will be more experienced or more perceptive than others. This amendment is not a perfect safeguard, but it will improve the chances of doctors stopping people being coerced.

The amendment would ensure that co-ordinating doctors must have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. It is a significant and distinct amendment. In particular, it addresses the issue of repeated coercive control, which so far has been overlooked in the Bill. I believe that amendments seeking to improve safeguards against coercion that do not address the issue of repeated coercive behaviour are inadequate in protecting vulnerable people, particularly women.

It is regrettable that in our witness sessions we did not hear from any experts on repeat coercive control. Such testimony would have been valuable, helping the Committee to understand why this specific environment puts people at risk with regard to the Bill.

We have already spoken a great deal about coercion in this Committee and other Members have referred to that. We have raised concerns about someone coercing another person into the process of assisted dying in a one-off incident. However, we have not yet discussed the very real issue of repeated coercive control and what it means to live in that environment, nor the implications that the Bill may have for people in those situations.

Dr Hannah Denno submitted written evidence to this Committee. She wrote:

“As a doctor I am not trained to detect coercion, and I do not believe that the Bill pays sufficient attention to the detection of those who are under pressure from themselves or others to end their lives. The Bill describes two independent medical assessments, both can be carried out by doctors who have never previously met or cared for the patient.”

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I just want to provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West. I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and today I will support amendment 20, which she has tabled. I hope that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am really grateful that she is supporting the amendment. However, the reason I am making this speech is that I do not think the amendment goes far enough in terms of providing safeguards within the Bill. So, I will make some progress with my speech and then I will address some of the issues that are not addressed in this particular amendment, and set out how we can go further, as well as highlighting some of my concerns.

I return to what Dr Denno wrote in the evidence that she submitted. She wrote that she was:

“not trained to detect coercion”.

And she also wrote that

“Social workers are better placed to screen for coercion but are not mentioned in the Bill.”

Since that submission, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that would mandate a social worker to sit on a panel to consider each application for assisted death. However, I am afraid that I must repeat several points about these panels, points that have already been made frequently. These panels are under no obligation to interview the applicant for assisted death in person. Panel members may do so if they have any concerns, but they may not. That makes it harder for panel members to detect possible coercion.

There is also an absence of any mechanism for people who know assisted dying applicants to report any concerns they have that that person is being coerced into this form of action. The panels are not used in that way, which is the way that multidisciplinary panels are used in the NHS to decide on the pathway for a patient. Instead, the panels introduced by my hon. Friend’s amendment would wait until the two doctors have submitted their statements on the applicant and then the panel members would scrutinise those statements. If they spot problems with the way that the doctors have determined that the patient is not being coerced, then, yes, they would call the patient in for more scrutiny. However, they will first have to come to that conclusion without seeing the patient. That is not a very robust safeguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am in the process of tabling an amendment that would change the panel to that effect, so that it would speak to the patient. Hopefully, that provides some more reassurance for my hon. Friend. I am sure that we are working very effectively through the Committee process to achieve what we all want to see.

[Naz Shah]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend will table further amendments, but I have not seen that amendment, so I cannot speak to it.

I would slightly beg to differ with my hon. Friend in terms of making progress in the way that I would like to have seen. I would just gently remind her that I am not convinced that we are. I think we are making good progress, but I also voted against one clause stand part and had lots of concerns about another one, so we will agree to disagree on that one.

The non-governmental organisation The Other Half observes in its written evidence to this Committee—TIAB 104—that the Bill makes no provision to identify family members who may benefit financially from the death of a patient, and, therefore, the Bill is unable to protect the vulnerable. That is something that I have said before in this Committee.

This amendment makes training in respect of financial abuse mandatory. It is vital that a medical practitioner is trained on how to identify coercion—we can all agree on that—but coercion is different from domestic abuse. Coercion may be relatively obvious to spot, but, in contrast, coercive and controlling behaviour is much less obvious. It can be subtle. It can be hidden, and unexpected to an outsider. It requires much more sensitive questioning and a degree of a doctor-patient relationship to identify. Multiple people have raised that a patient-doctor relationship is important for spotting that, and, currently, there is nothing in the Bill to say that the two independent doctors have to have met the patient before.

That subtle coercion could have happened over years. We have repeatedly heard from people giving evidence that it is really hard to spot, and the reason it is hard to spot is because it is a matter of trust for a patient to be able to tell somebody—for a victim of coercive control to be able to express that. Even recognising that there is subtle coercion going on is hard for victims of that coercion to understand.

If there is domestic violence—again, I say in this Committee that I first campaigned on domestic abuse in the mid-1990s, and I am not convinced that the stats have changed much. I will refer to some more later on, as I make progress, but it takes women, on average, 40 times to leave an abusive partner—40 times—and it took me a long time to leave my abusive forced marriage when I was very young. The coercion that happens is so subtle and, again, when it is repeated coercion, it is hard to even recognise it as a victim, let alone for a professional to be able to see it. Even when a professional may pick up on it, it is acknowledgment from the victim—that they recognise what is happening—that is important, and that often is not the case.

Again, multiple people have raised that the doctor-patient relationship is important, and there is nothing currently in the Bill to ensure that there is a long-standing relationship between the doctor and the patient. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that someone in an abusive relationship, or who experiences coercive and controlling behaviour on top of their terminal illness, would be willing and able to disclose that to a stranger, even if that stranger is a doctor.

On top of that, research suggests that a significant proportion of medical staff in the UK do not feel that they have had adequate training to spot domestic abuse. Research by YouGov and the charity SafeLives in 2018-19 found that half of UK healthcare professionals are untrained to spot domestic abuse.

I understand the current difficulty in ensuring that doctors have a prior relationship with patients; it may not be practically possible. In many cases, where patients will know their doctors, or even know them well, it is even more vital that both doctors have been thoroughly trained in spotting coercive-control behaviour.

Like the other Labour MPs on the Committee, I was elected on a manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls within the next 10 years. We must not forget that as we scrutinise this legislation; I want my colleagues and I to remain committed to that in this Bill.

This Bill will have particularly grave consequences for women, since we know that domestic abuse disproportionately affects them. The crime survey for England and Wales estimated that 2.3 million people aged 16 years and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2024. Of those, 1.6 million were women and 712,000 were men. In the same year, there were only 51,183 domestic abuse-related prosecutions—a very small number compared with the number of people who experienced domestic abuse. That is in addition to the abuse of our elderly, on which Age Concern submitted evidence. Those figures demonstrate that we already frequently struggle with bringing domestic abuse cases to prosecution stage. They show that even the dedicated members of our caring professions have trouble detecting domestic abuse. If something is hard, we need to train our doctors to do it.

Our society already diminishes the status of elderly, infirm women and I have concerns that the Bill will further entrench that. We need to be aware of and ensure that we address the problem of mercy killings in the Bill. That issue is distinctly gendered and the Bill as currently worded will have a distinctly gendered impact if we do not address it. In 2024, The Other Half carried out a review of more than 100 UK cases of so-called mercy killings. It found that

“‘mercy killings’ are not the wanted, ‘hastened’ deaths that need assisted dying.”

Instead, the review found that:

“They are overwhelmingly violent domestic homicides of women, by men: and show that our society is still poor at detecting and responding to domestic abuse.”

Some groups are more vulnerable to domestic abuse than others. A higher proportion of people aged 16 and over with a disability—a group that we know is vulnerable in relation to the Bill—experienced domestic abuse in the last year than those without a disability.

The law and Parliament have, unfortunately, taken a very long time to even start adequately responding to these problems. Coercive control was first recognised as a distinct offence in English law only in the Serious Crime Act 2015. As written, the Bill would not mandate training to the doctors whose role it would be to consider assisted dying cases. Of course, no training can be perfect, but to allow the Bill to go forward without ensuring that doctors have training in this complex matter would be negligent. It would mean that we were failing to even try to carry out our responsibilities to protect people, especially women, in abusive and coercive relationships.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that she will accept the amendment, but it does not go far enough. The question is: how do we prevent abusers making use of the Bill if it becomes law? The amendment gives us one way of mitigating that risk to a degree. We already have issues recognising domestic abuse. The amendment cannot perfectly solve that problem, but it would take steps to do so.

We must safeguard vulnerable people who live subject to coercive and controlling behaviour on a daily basis from opting for assisted dying as a result of that environment. Thorough and specific training on spotting that is vital for doctors. I am grateful that my hon. Friend, in accepting the amendment, will ensure that some of that training will be forthcoming. Even one abused person being driven by their abuser to use assisted dying is one too many. I am confident that all hon. Members would agree with me on that deeply important point.

In the last few days, I have been looking at suicide, and one of the issues that has come up is that last year, for the first time in our history, suicide by victims of domestic violence overtook deaths from what we would term intimate partner homicide. In the last two weeks, there have been further reports highlighting that the number of women driven to suicide because of the experience of domestic violence has risen. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will read the name of every woman who has been killed in the last year, as she does every year. Two of those women were my constituents, and many more kill themselves to get away from their abusers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that. We go back to the point about the true significance of the 2011 Welsh Government Measure, which sets a basic foundation for the duty of the Welsh Government to ensure that Welsh language provision is provided through the Welsh NHS. There is absolutely no debate about that point; that is nailed on. The question is simply how we ensure, if we are to amend this Bill along the lines that the right hon. Lady suggests, that that does not create a lacuna or confusion in the system. I think we need to sit down and discuss that, to ensure that whatever we propose is watertight.

It may be helpful to note, as in discussion of amendment 413, that regardless of this amendment, under the Welsh Language Measure of 2011 the NHS in Wales has a statutory duty to deliver its services to the public in both Welsh and English. That legislation gives the Welsh language official status in Wales, and the Measure states that individuals in Wales should be able to conduct their lives through the medium of Welsh if they choose to do so. The Welsh Government’s active offer for health is intended to support all staff across NHS Wales to provide a service in Welsh for patients without their having to ask for it.

Under amendment 20, regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor would be required to include mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Amendments 185 and 186, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, would require that regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor covered training related to assessing capacity and whether a person has been coerced or pressured by another person. But I note that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said, she is minded to support amendment 20, which clearly would ramp up the requirement, as previously discussed.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed, but to clarify the intent of the Bill, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to amendments 185 and 186, which would place the Secretary of State under a duty to make regulations regarding the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor. That would include specific training on assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been subject to coercion or pressure.

I hope that that explanation and those observations have assisted the Committee. I thank hon. Members for their attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak first to my amendments 185 and 186, which would make important changes to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required to act as the co-ordinating doctor, as the Minister says. Moving from “may” to “must” would make it a legal requirement that such training take place and would thereby strengthen the Bill. In its present form, the Bill gives the Secretary of State that power to make such regulations but does not legally require him or her to do so.

Amendment 186 would ensure that regulations must include training about

“(a) assessing capacity;

(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

Colleagues will appreciate that it is difficult for me to resist the temptation to put the entire training manual in the Bill—we all want to show the thorough approach that has been taken—but doing so would not make for good, clear legislation and can be limited in terms of flexibility and future-proofing. However, given the importance of the matters of capacity and coercion, I felt that it was important that this level of detail be specified in the Bill, because those issues have been at the heart of so many of our deliberations on this hugely sensitive and important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled amendment (a) to my amendment 186, has made a compelling argument, as always. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I have some concerns that the amendment would limit the number of disabled people who are covered and that it would not cover people with mental disorders, but I understand the concerns around autistic people and those with learning disabilities.

I am also mindful, given that people with Down’s syndrome will typically have some form of learning disability, that amendment (a) may help to address some of the concerns that were expressed yesterday about ensuring that the Bill meets their needs and takes them into consideration. I take on board the Minister’s comments about the Health and Care Act 2022, but I am minded to support the amendment and work with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and others as necessary to make any further changes as the Bill progresses.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting that amendment. We have often debated the level of detail that should be set out in the Bill. I fully appreciate that she does not want to include the whole training manual; I will not discuss my amendment, which concerns culture and trauma-informed care, because I recognise that it is much too detailed in that respect. However, does she agree that where possible, and where it does not create unintended consequences or loopholes, we should reassure not just colleagues across the House but members of the public, who want to see these sorts of thing on the face of the Bill?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Bill passes, it will be a huge change. We have a duty to the public to show that we are including sufficient detail in the Bill and to provide reassurance in any way we can. To be honest, I would quite like to put the entire training manual in the Bill, but I appreciate that from a legislative perspective that is not possible. However, there are occasions when, for the avoidance of doubt, we should make certain provisions clear on the face of the Bill.

That brings me to amendment 20, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who has a huge amount of experience and expertise in the field to which it relates. Her amendment states:

“Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”

At the moment, there are no safeguards for terminally ill victims of domestic abuse, financial abuse or coercive control. That concerns me, and it feeds into the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

If a victim of domestic abuse or coercive control—it is often a woman, as we know—is also terminally ill, I can only imagine what a lonely place that is. At the moment, that person is under no supervision. Sadly, there have been instances in which those people have taken their own life. They will continue to be the victims of their incredibly difficult personal circumstances on top of having a terminal illness, which is an absolute tragedy. Opening up the conversation with doctors and healthcare professionals about their circumstances has to be a good thing. It will shed light and transparency on what must be an incredibly difficult situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch, Gadeirydd. As Professor Emyr Lewis of Aberystwyth University told this Committee in oral evidence, because this Bill is a private Member’s Bill it has not gone through the usual process of engagement with devolved Governments. I recognise that there will be amendments and changes and amendments to amendments, but I can speak to the principle here and we will have to adapt as we move ahead, as we are learning to do in this Committee.

The Wales Act 2017 formally acknowledged the Sewel convention by amending section 107 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 with a declaration stating—this is important—that

“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Senedd.”

It is in that spirit that work needs to be done to ensure that the devolved legislature in Wales and the complexities of legislating across reserved and devolved matters are fully considered and represented in the Bill. That is what these 28 amendments seek to do.

The use of the term “appropriate authority” does two things. First, in the here and now, it recognises the complexity of which competency lies where and with which Minister or Secretary of State. Secondly, it future-proofs the legislation, which we know is important. If and when there are any changes to devolved powers and competencies, the appropriate authority can move with time with the specifics of who is responsible for what.

Amendment 169 would amend clause 40 to include a definition of “appropriate authority”, the term that is used in my other amendments. It would mean the Secretary of State in relation to England and the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, where those powers are devolved rather than reserved. The amendment would provide for my other amendments, which would modify each relevant mention of powers provided to the Secretary of State in the Bill, to supply Welsh Ministers with equivalent powers in Wales.

Amendment 144 would amend clause 5 to allow Welsh Ministers the same powers as the Secretary of State in England to specify the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioner representing the co-ordinating doctor, because that matter is devolved to Wales. Amendment 145, similarly, would require Welsh Ministers to consult persons they consider appropriate before making the relevant regulations in Wales.

Amendment 146 would amend clause 6 to allow Welsh Government Ministers equivalent powers to make provision around proof of identity. Amendment 147 would similarly amend clause 8 in relation to the training, qualifications and experience of the independent doctor; we are talking, of course, about the co-ordinating doctor.

And so on, and so on. I assume that hon. Members now understand the purpose of my various amendments. I am more than willing to explain them further if necessary, but otherwise I will skip ahead.

Amendments 155 and 156 would modify clause 30 so that the Welsh Government are provided with a power to issue a code of practice over arrangements in relation to this legislation in Wales. That might be a useful route into further discussions on the specifications of the codes of practice; it might also be significant in discussions with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Government about how to recognise legislative differences in safeguarding and the Welsh language.

Amendments 157 and 158 are also important. They would provide Welsh Ministers with the power to make regulations under clause 32 to ensure that assistance is available through the health service in Wales. That is the responsibility of Welsh Ministers. As Committee members know, Senedd Cymru voted against a motion to support an assisted dying law by 26 to 19, with nine abstaining. There are a number of issues of which we need to be aware when bringing an England and Wales law into Wales. To ignore them would be irresponsible; we do so at our peril, frankly, especially given that clauses 33 and 34 will place explicit obligations on Welsh Ministers and the chief medical officer for Wales.

I put it on the record that I am disappointed that the Committee was not able to question the chief medical officer for Wales. I understand that he was invited. As there are matters in the Bill that we do not deal with every day in this place, that would have been useful. The Bill is unprecedented, certainly for a private Member’s Bill, in respect of the support, information and advice that the Committee needs, and that would have been an obvious opportunity for us to receive advice. I understand that the chief medical officer has advised on other pieces of legislation, including vaping, although that was Government legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I can confirm that the chief medical officer for Wales was invited to give evidence. I do not know the circumstances of why he did not. If it is helpful for me or other colleagues to meet him, the offer is definitely open.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Amendments 161 to 165 relate to clauses 35, 37 and 38. Amendments 161 to 163 would provide for the Welsh Government to review the operation of the legislation in Wales, which is vital to understand the specifics of the Welsh context and to learn and adapt as appropriate. To not allow Welsh Ministers that power would be to dismiss the particularities of health policy in Wales, as well as the additional implications of contextual differences. I strongly believe that we require an impact assessment to understand those differences properly within the context of health being devolved to Wales, alongside significant population differences in relation to demographics, age and sickness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For clarity, amendments negatived in Committee, if they are pressed today, can be tabled again on Report. I say that in case the right hon. Lady wished to press the amendment and it was defeated. I hope there was clarity from me on that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I welcome this important debate about the impact of this potential legislation on Wales. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for her valuable contributions. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to meet the right hon. Lady and me for discussions with parliamentary counsel and the relevant authorities.

This is really important. The criminal justice system covers England and Wales, so it is important for the Bill to do the same, given that it disapplies the Suicide Act in certain very carefully defined circumstances. But health is, of course, devolved and the Welsh Government quite rightly make decisions on the Welsh NHS. I want to make it clear that I recognise that reality and its importance, and I am fully committed to observing the same conventions that the Government would if this were a Government Bill.

As has been said, I am working with UK Government officials to ensure that the right steps are taken at the right time, and I would expect to engage colleagues in the Welsh Government as the Bill progresses. Indeed, I really look forward to doing so and would be happy to visit the Senate if appropriate—although, as Members can tell, I need to work on my Welsh a bit. I look forward to continuing these conversations.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 359, in clause 5, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

“(ba) who has conducted the preliminary discussion in accordance with section 4,”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment requires that the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion prior to witnessing the signing of the first declaration.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment speaks to the general confusion we remain in about how the assisted dying law would be implemented and who would operate it. We are in a great cloud of unknowing about whether we are talking about an NHS service or a private service. If there were to be a private service and people were to be paid to deliver it outside the NHS, the amendment would clarify obligations regarding how their remuneration would be recorded.

There is an established precedent for publishing financial interests where there is a potential for a conflict of interest. Senior officials in NHS England, NHS trusts and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency must declare financial interests—including relationships with pharmaceutical companies—in public registers. Those interests include consultancy fees, gifts, hospitality, shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies or research funding, because there is a concern that those influence drug approvals, procurement and healthcare policy and that there is a risk of bias.

NHS England guidance on managing conflicts of interest encourages the detailed disclosure of significant payments from pharmaceutical companies, often with exact figures or ranges for payments above a £500 threshold. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry runs Disclosure UK, which requires pharmaceutical companies to publicly report payments to healthcare professionals and organisations. It would be appropriate to follow this well-established precedent and ensure that people involved in the administration of assisted dying are accountable for the transparency for their remuneration.

Clause 5(3) recognises that there could be a conflict of interest and that there is a risk that someone who is related or might benefit financially may not be a neutral assessor of someone who wishes to die, but clause 40(4), which comes rather late in the Bill—it should be up front—specifies that

“a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially or in any other material way from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services”.

Here is where we discover that the Bill does envisage remuneration, but people being remunerated are excluded from the definition of people who financially benefit from the service. To me, that feels dangerous.

Although it has not resolved the question of whether assisted dying is to be an NHS service, the Bill clearly envisages the establishment of a private market for these services, perhaps with a specialist service like Dignitas. Are we content with the Bill’s assertion that remuneration is not a matter for scrutiny? What level of remuneration would we consider reasonable? What level would we consider excessive—remuneration that is capable of influencing a doctor’s thinking? Would they be paid for administering assisted death on a per patient basis, or as a cumulative practice?

As MPs, should we not have some unease at the idea that this could be a highly profitable specialism for private practice? Transparency on what is being charged and who is profiting from the service would help us to understand what is happening in the system that is being established. I suggest that we bring more sunlight into the system, as we do in many other areas.

It is notable that there is little public data on what is charged, or how much revenue assisted dying generates for medical practices, in other countries where assisted dying is a private service. That is regrettable, and I hope we will not replicate that here. We do know that at Dignitas, which is a not-for-profit, the cost for a single patient is between £5,000 and £8,500 in fees alone. What is reasonable remuneration for a practice that provides assisted dying here in the UK? The term is entirely undefined, and I would be grateful for any clarity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s keenness to get to the debate on clause 32, on the provision of the service—we will come to that in due course—but this conversation is about the amendment. To be clear, there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to have that suggestion. Clause 32 is extremely broad. It basically empowers the Secretary of State to set up a service in any way they choose, potentially including in the private sector. The hon. Lady says it is not envisaged that would happen, as she is suggesting this should be an NHS service. I am grateful for the clarity, but I wish it were clearer in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It will be.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to hear we will have more clarity. Having assisted suicide as an NHS service is fraught with enormous risks, along the lines we have discussed and will no doubt continue to discuss. At least we have that clarity. If the hon. Lady is going to rule out private provision and profit making or remuneration of people outside the NHS, I would be grateful for amendments specifying that. That would help to address this question.

My amendments would mean that if there is private provision of assisted suicide, as the Bill currently allows, the public and Parliament could understand who is being paid what, which I think is very appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarity, although we now seem to be less clear than we were. I understood the hon. Member for Spen Valley to be saying that there will not be private provision, but my right hon. Friend is saying that there may be.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

It would be helpful if the hon. Lady clarified whether private provision will be allowed under the Bill, because I think we have a party split. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire supports private provision, but the hon. Lady suggests this should be done only on the NHS.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. I understand the keenness to have this debate now, but we will come on to it further down the line. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire is right that this is really important.

[Danny Kruger]

It certainly is. Okay, so it could be either. This will be an NHS service, with all the implications for general practice, doctor-patient relations and secondary care and social care, but there will also be an opportunity to deliver it privately, without any clarity or transparency on who is being paid and how.

In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is different from cosmetic surgery, as even cosmetic surgery is regulated. In many ways, there is more regulation of the administering of Botox than there is in this Bill. The administering of assisted dying is of a significantly different category and gravity. It is appropriate and important that financial interests are clearly revealed and made public, particularly with the new intervention we are creating. If other hon. Members do not support the amendment, what provisions do they propose that would reveal where there may be potential conflicts of interest and how we may regulate this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree. Like any other aspect of what doctors and general practitioners do, this service is based on remuneration. They are professionals and should be remunerated as such, so the tariff will be important. It is also important that we do not jump ahead into defining the operating model. As I said, officials are working on this with the Bill’s promoter, and it will be made clear when we get to the relevant clauses.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Hopefully the Minister and other colleagues are reassured that, if the Committee agrees to the introduction of the voluntary assisted dying commission, monitoring will be very intense and reporting will be very robust. That might allay some of the fears that have been raised today.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have repeatedly said, the Government are neutral on the fundamental question of the Bill, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring it is workable should it receive Royal Assent. The role of the commission will be pivotal in ensuring that the Bill is workable and that all the necessary monitoring and regulation mechanisms are in place.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 361, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations under subsection (3)(e) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This is linked to Amendment 360.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing further to add in this debate.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the light of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Spen Valley that there will be further amendments later, when we can discuss the shape of the provision and presumably any remuneration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 186, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the training, qualifications and experience that a registered medical practitioner must have in order to act as the coordinating doctor.

(3B) The regulations must include training about—

(a) assessing capacity;

(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.

(3C) Subject to that, the regulations may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 185.

Amendment made to amendment 186: (a), after

“(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

insert

“(c) specific and up-to-date training on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability.”—(Daniel Francis.)

Amendment 186, as amended, agreed to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 187, in clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequential on NC8, which contains a single duty to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 233, which contains a single set of provisions about the procedure for regulations under the Bill.

Amendment 192, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 199, in clause 8, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (8).

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment 200, in clause 8, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (9).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 206, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 211, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment 212, in clause 19, page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 213, in clause 20, page 13, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 215, in clause 28, page 17, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 216, in clause 30, page 18, line 37, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 217, in clause 30, page 18, line 38, leave out “that procedure” and insert “section 39”.

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 218, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 219, in clause 33, page 20, line 24, leave out subsection (5).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 222, in clause 38, page 23, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 233, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A), 30(3) or 32 unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations and makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Amendment 225, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 23.

The amendment is consequential on Amendment 233.

Amendment 226, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 37.

The amendment is consequential on Amendment 233.

New clause 8—Duty to consult before making regulations—

“(1) Before making regulations under section 5, 7, 8, 13, 19 or 21, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The persons to be consulted under subsection (1)(b) must include —

(a) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity, and

(b) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced,

unless the Secretary of State considers that, having regard to the subject-matter of the proposed regulations, it would not be appropriate to consult such persons.”

This new clause imposes a duty to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This group of amendments is consequential on new clause 8, which would create a single duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill. It would consolidate the previous requirements to consult in relation to clauses 5, 8 and 19 and expand the duty to cover additional clauses. It would require the Secretary of State to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The persons to be consulted under subsection (1)(b) must include persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity, and persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced.

This is an important strengthening of the Bill. It applies to multiple clauses: clauses 5, 7, 8, 13, 19 and 21. The duty to consult experts, particularly on issues around capacity and assessing for coercion, is an important change that reflects the detailed debate that the Committee has undertaken on those two important issues.

Amendment 233 brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It would make the regulations to be made under clauses 5 and 8, on training, qualifications and experience, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so that Parliament has to debate and approve them first. Again, that would strengthen the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

In a sense, this is a technical set of amendments that consolidate the provisions for secondary legislation. However, it reflects the seriousness of a concern that I and others have raised, which is that so much in this Bill will be left to the discretion of Ministers, often through the negative procedure.

It is important to reflect briefly on the questions that we are considering. The hon. Lady has mentioned quite a few of them, but we are talking about the training of doctors; the High Court procedure, if there is one; the substances that may be used in the administration of assisted death; the prescribing of those substances; the registration of deaths; the codes of practice to be introduced; provision through the NHS; notification to the chief medical officers; changing the schedules in the Bill, and so on.

Those are important matters. I recognise that many of them are complicated and technical, and that it is appropriate to leave them to a degree of professional and ministerial discretion. Nevertheless, my great concern, which relates to the parliamentary procedure—you may have a view on this, Mrs Harris—is that we are having this debate without the benefit of a delegated powers memorandum to explain why each power has been taken, the nature of it, the reason for taking the power and the procedure to be selected.

In a recent report on the Bill, the Hansard Society notes that under the Government’s “Guide To Making Legislation”, a delegated powers memorandum would normally be published prior to Second Reading for a private Member’s Bill on issues of conscience on which the Government are neutral. The report explains that a delegated powers memorandum gives

“details of each power in the bill, including its context, its scope, to whom the power is delegated, and the parliamentary scrutiny procedure…the reasons for taking the power; and…why.”

It points out that

“where the responsible department recommends that the Government should support the Private Member’s Bill or remain neutral then a DPM should be produced for consideration by the relevant Cabinet Committee—the Parliamentary Business and Legislation (PBL) Committee—alongside other key documents such as the explanatory notes, a legal issues memorandum, and an impact assessment”.

We have not yet had an impact assessment either.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in consultation with the Government. This reflects the Government’s role in ensuring that the Bill is legally robust and workable. The amendments relate to the regulation-making powers and bring together various provisions about procedure and requirements for regulations and consultation.

I will address the amendments in two groups, starting with new clause 8 and its consequential amendments 187, 199 and 211. The new clause contains a duty to consult before making regulations; it is intended to consolidate three subsections that contain duties to consult before making regulations, as set out in the original draft of the Bill under clauses 5, 8 and 19. In addition to retaining the existing duties to consult before making regulations in clauses 5, 8 and 19, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under clauses 7, 13 and 21, and brings together these requirements under a single duty.

The new clause would place an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as such other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The latter group must include persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity or have been coerced, unless it would not be appropriate to consult such persons.

I turn to amendments 233, 188, 192, 215 to 219, 222, 225, 226, 212, 213, 200 and 206. There are provisions throughout the Bill, as it is currently drafted, about the procedure for making regulations. All regulations, except for those made under clause 5(3)(a), clause 8(6)(a), clause 30(3) and clause 32, are required to be made under the negative procedure. Amendment 233 would bring together the various provisions about the procedure for making regulations into a single clause, clause 39, thereby removing repetition in the Bill. The amendment seeks to achieve that by replacing subsections (3) to (5) in clause 39 with the following:

“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A), 30(3) or 32 unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

The amendment would require that any regulations made under those provisions must be laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This procedure, the draft affirmative procedure, will apply to regulations setting the training, qualifications and experience of both the co-ordinating and the independent doctors, establishing a code of practice and securing arrangements for the provision of assisted dying under the Act. Any other statutory instrument made under powers within the Bill will remain subject to the negative procedure.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions. These comments relate to the legal and regulatory side of the Bill, and I hope that my observations are useful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 187 agreed to.

Amendment made: 20, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”—(Daniel Francis.)

This amendment would require the registered medical practitioner acting as the coordinating doctor to have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

Amendment made: 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (6).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 233, which contains a single set of provisions about the procedure for regulations under the Bill.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Requirement for proof of identity

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 189, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“where a person makes a first declaration”

and insert

“in relation to the making of a first declaration by a person”.

This amendment adjusts the wording so as not to suggest that a first declaration has been made before it is witnessed.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 190, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out

“at the same time as that declaration is made”

and insert “before signing that declaration”.

This amendment provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration.

Amendment 291, in clause 6, page 3, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) At least one of the forms of identity required under subsection (2) must contain photographic proof of identity.

(2B) The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide proof that they have been resident in the UK for at least a year to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”.

This would require a person to produce a form of photographic ID and proof they have been resident in the UK when making the first declaration.

Amendment 292, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations on proof of identity.

Amendment 191, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) have been met.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) are met.

Amendment 419, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3B) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if—

(a) the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion with the person or is satisfied that another registered medical practitioner has conducted such a discussion, and

(b) the coordinating doctor has made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made.

Amendment 293, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This will change the process to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments specifying acceptable forms of ID for the first declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 419 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made. The co-ordinating doctor must have made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion. Amendment 189 adjusts the wording so as not to suggest that a first declaration has been made before it is witnessed to clarify that proof of identity must be provided before the declaration is signed and witnessed.

Amendment 190 provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration. Amendment 191 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of clause 6(2) are met; that is to say, that the patient has provided two forms of identity to the co-ordinating doctor. This is a relatively straightforward set of amendments to tidy up the requirements around proof of identity.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 291, 292 and 293, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I do not intend to press them to a vote; they are probing amendments. They all relate to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about the identification required of applicants for assisted dying. They do not change those requirements; they take a more logical and businesslike approach to proving that those requirements are met.

Amendment 291 would change the current requirements on identification and require applicants for assisted dying to produce a piece of photo ID and proof of residence in the UK for the previous year. As currently written, clause 6(2) states:

“The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide two forms of proof of identity to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

Surely that is not tight enough.

In particular, the Bill as written does not specify that either form of proof of identity should be photo ID. That may be a major omission. For much less significant decisions, the law of England and Wales requires at least one form of photographic ID. For example, there is currently a requirement to have photo identity to work on the parliamentary estate, vote, or have a bus pass or railcard. None of those is as important as applying for an assisted death.

I remind hon. Members that assisted death is a process that would end in a person being issued with and then taking a mixture of lethal drugs. In a hospital setting where drugs are dispensed, rigorous processes are undertaken to verify the patient. Drug errors are not uncommon. The previous Health and Social Care Committee’s report into pharmacy witnessed how clinical practice was being improved to reduce drug errors. Given that a lethal dose is dispensed as part of this process, the identification mechanisms are weak and should be addressed in this preliminary stage through the provisions set out in this amendment. It is possible that the wrong person could be prescribed the medication. That would be an extreme case, but we are talking about creating a wholly new power that would relate to life and death. We are talking about making assisted dying available to people who are, in many cases, extremely distressed. People in extreme circumstances will sometimes do extreme things. We should expect some extreme cases and seek to guard against them.

Amendment 291 would provide such a safeguard. The Bill says that to qualify for assisted dying, applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least a year, but it does not ask them to provide any proof of that residence. In such a serious matter, we surely cannot simply accept someone’s word that they live in the UK. Making that a requirement without a test to establish it de-values the importance of the criteria for qualifying.

Amendment 292 would change clause 6(3), which currently reads,

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

The amendment would change that “may” to a “must”, as the former treats the identification process with reduced seriousness. If the word “may” stays in legislation, there is no obligation to have rigour in the identification process. As drafted, the Bill is more open for abuse.

Amendment 293 seeks to place the regulations concerning identification under the affirmative procedure, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned earlier. Assisted dying is so important that no regulations made under it should be drawn using the negative procedure. As Members will know, if a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure, it must be approved by Parliament within a certain timeframe, which is usually 28 or 40 days. If that does not happen, the change to the law made by the statutory instrument will not take place. In the Bill as drafted, these regulations are covered by the negative procedure, which means that if and when the Secretary of State decides to change them, they could go through on the nod unless Members raised an objection. A statutory instrument laid through the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion rejecting it is passed by either House within 40 sitting days.

Placing all changes to regulations under the affirmative procedure would ensure that we have scrutiny by Parliament. We should all approve this. Our responsibility for this legislation will not end when and if it becomes an Act of Parliament. These amendments speak to tighter safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for all new regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to identity and residence. All hon. Members should support them.

[Danny Kruger]

I will quickly echo the points well made by the hon. Member for Bradford West in support of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. It is important to specify the form of identity that will be presented. The person presenting themselves for an assisted death needs to be who they say they are. At the moment, the power to specify the forms of proof of identity has no minimum requirements. As written, it does not require the Secretary of State to specify what is acceptable.

Two specific aspects we have to pay particular care to are age and residency. The process must be accessible only to over-18s. I am concerned that we rejected amendments yesterday that would have prevented people under 18 having the conversation. In light of that, it is even more important that we make it clear that people who access assisted death must be adults. We need to ensure that the forms of identity are specified and that Parliament can satisfy itself that they are robust.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We did not reject proposals for the preliminary discussion not to be taken by people under 18. We actually put a clause into the Bill that would ensure that the preliminary discussion was not taken with someone under 18.

[Danny Kruger]

That is right. The preliminary discussion will not, but there is nothing to stop the conversation beginning before the person is 18. I know they cannot formally begin the process of an assisted death, but the concern—although I will not revisit the debate—was that the topic should not be raised or discussed with children, and we did not succeed in that.

The proposal is to ensure that we have proper ID—a passport, driving licence or other combined photo ID and proof of age, so a birth certificate must be paired with something if it is to be robust. We think such questions should be reflected more clearly in the Bill. All sorts of ID would not be appropriate, such as student ID, a sworn statement with no underpinning official record and other such things, which we want to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have the term “ordinarily resident” in the UK in clause 1. Obviously if the Committee sees fit to accept the amendment it would change to “resident”, which is a looser term. This matter would also be one for the Home Office, as the custodian of our rules and regulations on immigration, but my sense would be that if we stick with “ordinarily resident” then someone who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom would not qualify for assisted dying.

As the Bill currently stands, the Secretary of State has the power but not the obligation to set these requirements in regulations. This amendment would remove this discretion and require the Secretary of State to specify what forms of ID must be provided.

Amendment 293 ensures that regulations on acceptable forms of proof of identify must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming into force, by requiring these regulations to follow the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. As I said earlier, the Government’s position is neutral, but I hope my observations—

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a thought based on the comments by the hon. Member for Reigate. The issue of photographic ID is worth giving consideration. Photo ID is used in multiple settings for different reasons. My slight concern is that some of the people we are thinking about with this Bill would be older and I think of some of my own family members who no longer have driving licences, passports or potentially any form of photographic ID. I would be concerned this could be a barrier for terminally ill people. Considering we are making this a robust process, which I totally agree with, I would be concerned that might present an issue.

[The Chair]

Order. I have asked for interventions to be short and not speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Kim Leadbeater, who now has the opportunity to say anything she likes.

[Kim Leadbeater]

You will be delighted, Chair, that I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 189 agreed to.

Amendments made: 190, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out

“at the same time as that declaration is made”

and insert “before signing that declaration”.

This amendment provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration.

Amendment 191, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) have been met.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) are met.

Amendment 419, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3B) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if—

(a) the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion with the person or is satisfied that another registered medical practitioner has conducted such a discussion, and

(b) the coordinating doctor has made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made.

Amendment 192, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

First doctor’s assessment (coordinating doctor)

Amendment proposed: 296, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, leave out from “must” to end of line 3, and insert

“after a first declaration is made by a person, arrange a time and which is convenient for both the medical practitioner and the person date that does not jeopardise the care of other patients, to carry out the first assessment.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment replaces the requirement that the coordinating doctor to arrange a first assessment as soon as practicable with a requirement to arrange it for a mutually convenient time which doesn’t jeopardise the care of other patients.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 127, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, leave out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

and insert “within 10 working days”.

The amendment requires the coordinating doctor to carry out an assessment under the Act within ten working days.

Amendment 128, in clause 7, page 4, line 23, leave out “as soon as practicable” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to refer a person within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable to another registered medical practitioner to carry out the second assessment.

Amendment 129, in clause 8, page 4, line 29, leave out

“as soon as reasonably practicable,”

and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the independent doctor to carry out the second assessment within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable to another registered medical practitioner to carry out the second assessment.

Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not practitioner with the person’s GP practice, to give a registered medical practitioner from that practice notice of the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 132, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 133, in clause 17, page 11, line 38, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 134, in clause 17, page 12, line 2, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the medical practitioner to whom notice or indication of the cancellation of declaration is given to notify a registered medical professional from the person’s GP practice within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 135, in clause 17, page 12, line 5, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 136, in clause 21, page 14, line 12, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 137, in clause 21, page 14, line 15, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 138, in clause 21, page 14, line 18, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 139, in clause 22, page 14, line 27, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 140, in clause 22, page 14, line 30, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 141, in clause 22, page 14, line 33, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I might address the question at a future point, because the issue of how we reflect on these proceedings outside this place has come up privately.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not consider for one second that there is any ill intent behind the amendment, but I am slightly concerned about the language, which is what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley meant. The issue is the suggestion that a doctor would, in any circumstances, jeopardise the care of other patients. We are talking about doctors a lot, and we have the utmost respect for medical practitioners, but I imagine that that would be a worrying concept to have in writing from their perspective.

[Danny Kruger]

I respect that point, and it is a fair charge: that doctors would not do this. Nevertheless, as I have been stressing, we are in uncharted territory, and there is a genuine concern about the resource implications of the Bill.

The Bill clarifies and emphasises things in lots of other places—“for the avoidance of doubt” and so on—and the amendment would clarify that the procedure under the Bill would not take precedence in a clinician’s time over other matters that they also consider to be pressing and urgent. That is an appropriate safeguard for doctors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I think most points have been covered, so I will be brief. The point of the amendment 296 is to recognise the challenges faced by medical practitioners in the NHS. It is really well intended. I suspect that there are different ways to do this, which we could discuss, but the amendment would recognise that medical practitioners will come under a lot of pressure.

The very nature of the assisted dying process means there is pressure to move quickly—for obvious reasons. If someone is in pain and an assisted death is what they have chosen to do, they are going to want to move forward at pace. It cannot be as usual, with however long it can take in the NHS—often for a normal procedure. The point of the amendment is simply to be cognisant of the fact that other patients, too, require healthcare. This comes back to the debate we have had many times about what is healthcare and what is not. It is one of the issues that comes up when we have assisted dying amalgamated with general healthcare in the NHS.

We are hearing concerns from doctors on the frontline. In written evidence, eight doctors, six of them GPs, say that the NHS lacks both the time and the capacity to create the new role of co-ordinating doctor with its grave responsibilities. The statistics bear out their concerns. In a 2024 survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, over 40% of UK GPs who responded said that they were “unlikely” to be practising still in five years’ time; 40% feel stressed to the point of “not coping” at least once a week; and 79% are concerned about having fewer GPs at their practice and its impact on the quality of care that their practice can deliver. The reality of the matter is that we have to recognise that the introduction of assisted dying places another pressure on our health system, and to try to address that head on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making some interesting points, but would she agree that we are talking about not new patients, but existing patients who are already in their last few months of life? It will not create a whole new pressure on the health service, because they are already receiving treatment.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. There will absolutely be some occasions where that is the case, but assisted dying is a different pathway—and we have a whole Bill on it, so there will be other formalities and safeguards. We are all here to make sure that rigour is applied to that pathway. With the best will in the world, there will always be more work and pressure, especially time pressure, on doctors. That time pressure will be critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

These amendments introduce requirements on the timing within which the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment once the first declaration is made by a person. I will turn first to amendment 296. As currently drafted, clause 7(1) requires that the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

after a person has made a first declaration. Amendment 296 would require that after the first declaration is made, the co-ordinating doctor must arrange a mutually convenient time and date for the first assessment to take place, but it removes the stipulation that the assessment must be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable. The amendment would also require the date and time agreed not to jeopardise the care of other patients. The effect of the amendment may be to lengthen the period between the first declaration and the first assessment, in some cases.

Amendments 127 to 141 seek to ensure that the assessments, declarations and statements made throughout the Bill are finalised and recorded within 10 working days of being started. The amendments achieve this by inserting the term “within 10 working days” in place of

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

in clauses 7, 8, 16, 17, 21 and 22. This would put in place a time-bound limit that the medical practitioner must adhere to when carrying out the first and second assessments, when recording information in medical records at various stages, including the High Court declaration, and when recording other matters in medical records.

Our assessment suggests that in most circumstances, although it would depend on the facts of a particular case, the requirement to do an action as soon as practicable would generally amount to a requirement to do the action sooner than in 10 working days’ time. In terms of the operational effects, having a set timeline may give greater certainty to individuals seeking assistance. However, it may limit doctors’ discretion to set the timeline based around the patient’s wishes. These are matters for the Committee to weigh up and consider.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That has been a very useful discussion. I have nothing to add.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we think about some of the people we have met—the families who have lost loved ones to terminal illness and the patients who are terminally ill—they are very clear in their decision. For me, it would be another barrier to those patients, who are dying people, to make them see a psychiatrist for every single case.

[Dr Opher]

I think it would create a barrier. We need to make sure that we deliver legislation that does what we are trying to do, which is to enable someone with a terminal illness, who has full capacity, to make a decision about the end of their life.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Committee has found these observations useful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will do the easy bits first. As the Minister said, amendment 370 in my name is a drafting change to the definition of a psychiatrist, which is obviously very important. These useful amendments have enabled us to have this discussion, and they all come from a good place in trying to enhance safeguarding within the Bill.

On organ donation, my sister-in-law has had two kidney transplants. On neither occasion, to my understanding, did a psychiatrist speak to either her or the organ donor, who in one instance was her brother—my sister-in-law would be very upset that I have mentioned her in Parliament. My understanding of the law is that someone may be referred to a mental health specialist. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case, but I do not think a consultation with a psychiatrist is compulsory.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, it is absolutely right that we support amendment 6. From the start, I have been clear that we should move from “may” to “must” in referring to a psychiatrist where either doctor has any doubt. That is a sensible approach, and it covers most of today’s discussion.

However, introducing a whole new system that would almost sit alongside the Bill, and that would change the process, is unnecessary. Those are my conclusions, based on what has been another very interesting discussion.

[Daniel Francis]

I will not come back on anything but, obviously, I will press some of these amendments in due course.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 294, in clause 7, page 4, line 5, after “doctor” insert

“based on provided evidence that”.—(Daniel Francis.)

This amendment would require that the doctor bases their assessment on provided evidence.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Although this is not specified in any of the amendments—which are in the name of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) —they are very much informed by the work she has done over a number of years as the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. This is a subject about which she has a great deal of knowledge, and that is what has prompted this group of amendments, which follow on from the debate we had just before the break.

It is important to remember that although amendment 6 —in the name of another good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper)—talked specifically about people’s capacity, this group of amendments very much returns to a topic I have spoken on at length in previous sittings: how a person’s capacity to request an assisted death might well be impacted if they are suffering from mental health difficulties.

Amendment 363 would require a mental health assessment if there is any indication that a person’s judgment may be impaired by a mental disorder or other conditions. We have debated this topic at length—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire nodding, but it is worth returning to the issue, because a principal concern of mine is that we have not yet dealt adequately with this risk in the Bill. We have talked about how the Mental Capacity Act might be applied and about psychosocial interventions, but I am keen to see amendment 363 agreed to, because it would deal with many of the objections raised in those other debates. It is an important safeguard that still needs to be included in the Bill.

The Bill has been described as having the strongest safeguards in the world, but it lacks this critical safeguard, which is seen in many similar laws around the world, including Oregon and California, which require that in addition to establishing mental capacity, doctors must ensure that a person’s judgment is not impaired by mental illness. In fact, in the American state of Hawaii, every patient who requests an assisted death is required to see a mental health professional, who can determine whether the patient is capable and appears not to be suffering from under-treatment or non-treatment of depression or other conditions that may interfere with their ability to make an informed decision.

It is provided for specifically and clearly in the legislation that governs assisted dying in other jurisdictions that assessments of the state of people’s mental health—and not just their capacity—must be made properly. The absence of any such safeguard in the Bill represents a clear risk. We know that mental health conditions can impair decision making and lead to suicidal ideation, particularly when a person lacks adequate social support. Without this provision, individuals experiencing a treatable mental health crisis may be given life-ending medication instead of the care and treatment that could alleviate their suffering.

Professor Allan House made the importance of that clear in his written evidence. He wrote:

“Simply checking mental capacity and asking about coercion is not adequate.”

He emphasised that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in other areas already require a comprehensive psychosocial assessment that explores

“thoughts about life not being worth living”

and considers

“current and recent personal and social circumstances, recent adversities, psychological state beyond merely assessing mental capacity and the presence of severe mental illness.”

Professor Louis Appleby, the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention—I have referenced him on many occasions in previous sittings—has also raised concerns that the Bill could undermine suicide prevention efforts. Speaking to The Guardian, he said:

“You have a number of potentially remediable risk factors like isolation, for example. Do something about isolation. Depression, treat depression. It should be the offer of supporting people through the remediable elements of a sense of despair.”

That highlights why a safeguard is necessary to ensure that individuals receive proper assessment and treatment, if needed, before making an irreversible decision. If a person qualifies for assisted dying but is also experiencing impaired judgment due to a psychiatric condition, how can we be confident that their decision is truly autonomous?

Amendment 363 would require the co-ordinating doctor to assess whether a person’s request for assisted dying is influenced by a mental health condition. If there is any concern that impaired judgment due to a mental disorder is a factor, the doctor must refer the individual for a psychiatric assessment. The amendment would explicitly protect individuals with mental health disorders, including eating disorders, from accessing assisted dying when their desire to die is a symptom of their illness rather than a rational decision deriving from a terminal illness.

Do not ask me how I know this, but eating disorders really scramble a person’s brain. They leave them entirely incapable of making any kind of rational decision. The lack of nutrition really affects the brain: it has a physical impact that means the brain simply cannot function as it is supposed to. That is a direct cause of a person not ingesting the nutrients they need. When that happens to somebody, their behaviour completely changes: they become anxious, fearful, irrational and aggressive. It is not just that they believe their life is not worth living; the entire span of their life has shrunk down entirely to the question of how they can avoid eating. What is the next meal? What is the next stage in their life when someone is going to try to get them to eat, and how can they avoid that? What tactics can they employ?

When a person is in the grip of that kind of eating disorder, if someone comes along and offers them the possibility of an assisted death, there is every chance that they will choose that as a way of avoiding eating. As I say, do not ask me how I know this, but I have seen it, and for me it is beyond comprehension that we could possibly allow young people, and young women in particular, to put themselves in the position where they are being offered an assisted death and no one is taking those extra steps to treat their eating disorders—and eating disorders are always treatable. That is why I want to press the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, and I understand that the amendments come from a very good place, and a very strong and experienced one, but she just made the point that eating disorders are treatable. That is the whole point: they would not fall under the criteria in the Bill.

[Sarah Olney]

That is why we need to ensure that people with eating disorders get the treatment they need, instead of being offered an assisted death. That is why we need the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

Let me just reply to the hon. Member’s original point. It is so important—and this is why we need the amendment in the Bill—that if there is any doubt at all that someone is suffering from a treatable mental health condition, they are not allowed to proceed with their request for an assisted death until all avenues of treatment for that condition have been explored. Eating disorders are treatable: people can recover and can, in the fullness of time, recover their zest for life. They can move beyond the stage where their decision whether to eat or not is their entire world. They can rediscover their friends, their employment and their education, and they can look forward to a full life again. But it is imperative that while they are in the grip of that eating disorder, they are not offered the option of an assisted death.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree with every word the hon. Lady said, and—possibly like her—I have experience of working with people with eating disorders. However, clause 2 defines terminal illness as “an inevitably progressive” illness or disease

“which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

Eating disorders can be reversed by treatment, and therefore I am not willing to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are gradients of mental health issues, from low mood to suicidality and so on. We should not prevent anyone from accessing an option merely because of a mild element of, for example, depression, which they have lived with for their entire lives, if they have then been diagnosed with a terminal condition.

The key point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley made out, is that the idea that eligibility will be conferred as a result of mental health illnesses is not correct. As we have discussed, the definition of “inevitably progressive” in clause 2, which is at the heart of the Bill, clearly protects against such instances. I also highlight the amendments we have made that help to clarify some of this. Members have pointed out the amendment from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire on removing medical conditions from the Bill, which was very helpful in this regard.

I do not want to fall foul of Standing Order No. 42 on repetition, but I feel like with this issue we are repeating some of our discussions on capacity. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge highlighted significant elements of the relevant legal framework in her speech at that point. In my view, setting out a test that is separate to the Mental Capacity Act, particularly in respect of the impairment of judgment, which is not then defined in any way, would undermine that Act, which has to be the cornerstone of the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Is he, like me, reassured that it is not just about capacity, but about someone’s clear, settled and informed wish? If someone is suffering from a mental health condition, there is a very strong chance that they will not meet the criteria. Also, my amendment 423 will strengthen the fact that the assessing doctors must speak to somebody else in regard to the patient, including eating disorder specialists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Apologies, Mrs Harris: I was late returning to my seat earlier and missed the opening remarks from the hon. Member for Richmond Park on this amendment. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that, as it is, if somebody has anorexia—we are not talking about capacity, which I referred to in the cases of the nine girls I spoke about—that is an accepted mental health condition and the amendment is trying to exclude those people from having an assisted death. In the nine cases I spoke of, the court found that those girls with anorexia had capacity and ruled that they had a terminal illness.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I apologise, but I thought my hon. Friend said that they did not have capacity.

[Naz Shah]

Sorry—they did not have capacity, but the Court of Protection still ruled that they would be taken down the route of palliative care. This is not just a matter of capacity; in this instance, when we talk about mental health—before we even get to the capacity question—the issue is that anorexia is a recognised mental health condition. I beg to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on whether we have enough provision. We keep coming back to this issue time and again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that these amendments are coming from a good place and from somebody with huge experience in this particular area. There is absolute consensus on the Committee that the last thing we want is for anybody with a mental health condition and terminal illness to end up going down a path that they did not want, and we have to put as many safeguards as possible in place to ensure that that does not happen.

However, I remain confident that the Bill, with the amendments that we have voted for in Committee and the safeguards that were already there, provides the highest level of safeguards to ensure that people with mental health conditions are protected. Let us look at the fact that there will be two doctors; we have talked at great length about not only their existing skills but the skills that they would gain from the robust training, particularly in assessing capacity, detecting coercion and the specific skills that we might say they would need for the purposes of the Bill.

We can also look at the fact that the doctors can make any referral to any other professional, as they want. Clause 9(2) currently says that they can

“make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate”.

I have strengthened that further with amendment 423, which specifically talks about health and social care professionals, which is again another opportunity to have another professional involved.

Clearly, I would find it untenable for a doctor, presented with a terminally ill patient with an eating disorder, not automatically to speak to a professional involved in that field. That feeds into the broader point, with which I absolutely concur, that we need to do more to support people with eating disorders—that is a very important, separate piece of work. We then add amendment 6, which puts in place the compulsory referral to a psychiatrist. We have talked a lot about the psychiatrist’s role in assessing capacity, but we must remember that this would be a psychiatrist doing the assessment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central mentioned, mental health conditions are referred to in the Mental Capacity Act, and “impairment” is referred to in the Mental Capacity Act.

Many safeguards were there already, and we have added additional ones as a Committee. We also then come on to the multidisciplinary panel, which I hope the Committee will support. It would add extra layers of expertise, with social workers, psychiatrists and legal oversight. I remain confident that there are multiple levels of safeguarding at various stages in the Bill that would address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bath. Equally, I am very happy to continue speaking to her and meeting her, as I did quite recently, to talk about this issue and look at whether we can do any other things to enhance the Bill going forward.

Question put, That amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments seek to ensure that an individual requesting assistance to die will not be able to do so if there is a real risk that the eligibility criteria have not been met.

The Bill provides in clauses 7, 8, 12, 13 and 18 that where the assessing doctor or court is satisfied that, in their opinion, the eligibility criteria that they are charged with assessing have been satisfied, they must complete the next relevant step required by the Bill. If, however, the assessing doctor or court are not satisfied that the eligibility criteria that they are charged with assessing have been met, they must not take the next steps set out under the Bill.

Our assessment is that, as drafted, this group of amendments could create uncertainty as to what the assessing doctors are required to assess. The amendment would add a separate, potentially overlapping requirement on the assessing doctors and the court to assess whether there were no real risk. That could create uncertainty for the assessing doctors as to what is additionally required. I hope those observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, Mrs Harris.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 7, page 4, line 15, at end insert—

“(2A) The coordinating doctor must take the report required under subsection (2B) into account in making an assessment under paragraph (2)(b), (f) and (g).

(2B) One or more qualified persons must have conducted a separate interview with the person and made a report to the coordinating doctor on the matters specified in subsection (2C).

(2C) The matters that must be covered in the report required under subsection (2B) are—

(a) any evidence of duress or coercion affecting the person’s decision to end their life,

(b) any difficulties of communication with the person interviewed and an explanation of how those difficulties were overcome, and

(c) the capacity of the person interviewed to understand the information given to them under paragraph (9)(2), (b), (c) and (d).

(2D) A person shall be taken to be qualified to conduct an interview under subsection (2B) if that person—

(a) is a registered medical practitioner who—

(i) is registered in the specialism of psychiatry in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council, or

(ii) has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify,

(b) has not provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness,

(c) is not a relative of the person being assessed,

(d) is not a partner or colleague in the same practice or clinical team as the coordinating doctor,

(e) did not witness the first declaration made by the person being assessed, and

(f) does not know or believe that they—

(i) are a beneficiary under a will of the person, or

(ii) may otherwise benefit financially or in any other material way from the death of the person.

(2E) Before making regulations under subsection (2D)(a), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(2F) Regulations under subsection (2D)(a) are subject to the negative procedure.”—(Daniel Francis.)

This amendment, and its consequential and linked amendments (15, 16, 17, 18 and 19), would provide for an independent assessment, via an interview conducted by a specialist, of a person’s capacity to make the decision to end their own life, their clear, settled and informed wish to do so, and that they have made the first declaration voluntarily and without coercion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I should like to speak to amendment 1 —I am pleased that I was able to table my amendment first. We have already discussed safeguarding many times and how capacity is central to these measures. As we know, clause 1 lists the qualifying criteria that a terminally ill person must meet, which includes having the capacity to make such a decision. Indeed, the qualifying criteria might not be written in any order of importance, but the fact that that appears first underlines its significance.

In many days of sittings the most spoken words have been mental health, capacity, coercion and suicidal thoughts, rather than pain, cancer and suffering. The importance of capacity as a safeguard is again demonstrated when we turn to clauses 7 and 8, which in turn set out what both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must assess in order for a terminally ill adult to be allowed to end their own life.

In clause 7, the first assessing doctor with responsibility is the co-ordinating doctor. In clause 8, the second doctor is the independent doctor. The doctors are expected to assess mostly the same things. For example, the first doctor will assess whether the person is terminally ill, has capacity to make the decision to end their own life, is aged 18 or over, is ordinarily resident in England, and is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England. The second doctor does exactly the same and assesses whether the person is terminally ill, has capacity to make the decision to end their own life, is aged 18 years or over and so on.

Before coming to the first assessing doctor, the patient has already been treated by a consultant and been diagnosed as terminally ill, so the three doctors are basically doing the same job. That is important and relevant to my amendment 1, which asks that one of the two assessing doctors should be a qualified psychiatrist or a specialist in psychiatry. As I said earlier, the issues that have been most discussed by Committee members in the last few sittings were capacity, mental health and suicide. In my view, there is a gap that needs to be addressed.

We talked earlier about unconscious bias. There is already a provision in the Bill to refer a patient to a psychiatrist if one of the doctors thinks that there is an issue with their mental health or capacity. We discussed a similar concept when we debated the patient having access to a palliative care consultant. Some of the comments were that needing another person makes it complex, and it should be simplified. Do Members think that if any of the doctors thinks that there is an issue with the patient’s mental health or capacity assessment, making a referral creates that same kind of complexity? Getting access to a psychiatrist could be simplified by having that second doctor be a specialist in mental health. It is to be strongly welcomed that both co-ordinating doctors and independent doctors have to make an assessment that the person wanting to ending their life has the necessary capacity to make such an important decision.

The question came up during the debate about whether, if somebody has mild depression or another mental health disorder, but they still think that they have capacity, they should be allowed to choose this route. We have seen that, in some other countries where this route is already practised, mental health was originally excluded from the criteria but was later added. Are we saying that even if someone has mental ill health, mild depression or some sort of mental illness, if they have capacity, we can allow them to choose assisted dying? Who will make that decision?

In my experience of working in mental health for many years, I have seen many terminally ill people being admitted to mental health wards because of their increasing suicidal thoughts. Many people who have a mental illness for many years, especially chronically mentally ill people, lead a normal life with the support of medication, but when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, such as cancer, and start chemotherapy or taking medication for that, it can interact with the medication that they were already taking. That can have an impact on their mental health or decision making, so it is important that those patients have access to a psychiatrist.

I am not asking to make the process more complex or for us to draw any more resources from the NHS by adding a psychiatrist into the assessment. All my amendment asks is for one of the two doctors to be a psychiatrist, which in fact makes the process safer and more secure—some of the concerns that we have talked about.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling amendment 1 on the amendment paper—a lot has happened since he tabled that amendment, it is fair to say. I get the impression from the Committee that we will all be voting in favour of making it compulsory to refer to a psychiatrist when one of the doctors feels there is a need to. Is my hon. Friend somewhat reassured by that?

[Sojan Joseph]

I thank my hon. Friend for her timely intervention. I was going to say that having tabled amendment 1 asking for a psychiatrist to be involved, and having now been through many Committee sittings, I wonder whether I influenced an unconscious bias among Members to table more amendments relating to mental health, capacity and suicide. I say to my hon. Friend that although there can be a psychiatry referral, if we are talking about unconscious bias, as soon as the first and second doctor make the decision that the person has capacity, is terminally ill and is eligible for this process, the subsequent assessments can be influenced by the first assessment. That happens quite often in NHS healthcare, and especially mental health.

When the chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, was before the Committee, I asked him about mental capacity assessments. He said:

“I would hope that most doctors are capable of identifying that someone has some degree…of mental health distress, or mental health illness”.

However, he went on to say:

“What not all doctors will feel comfortable doing is actually deciding whether that is sufficient to interfere with someone’s ability to make a decision with full capacity. That is where help from colleagues from psychiatry, and mental health more widely, is going to be useful.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 38, Q17.]

We have spoken about this many times, but in written evidence the Royal College of Psychiatrists said:

“A person’s capacity can change, and it is decision specific. While we are of the view that a person’s capacity to decide treatment can be reliably assessed, an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding.”

In a previous sitting, we discussed having a panel that is able to do a psychosocial assessment. I know that the new clauses are yet to be discussed, but the relevant new clause does not specify who the members of the panel will be and whether it should include a psychiatrist or a social worker. That is yet to be made clear, so I am not convinced about that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To clarify, I think it is clear that the panel would include a psychiatrist and a social worker. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Sojan Joseph]

I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that. That is reassuring but, as I said earlier, I would like to know when the patient will have access to the panel. It is important that they access it early in the process, rather than later, because that is where unconscious bias comes in.

The purpose of my amendment is to save resources, because I know about the pressure on the NHS. Rather than having an additional psychiatrist on top of the two or three doctors, my amendment would simplify the process and save resources.

Although I acknowledge that the evidence I cited referred to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to the Bill—an issue on which the Committee has already decided—I would argue that it can equally be taken into consideration in this context. After all, in its written evidence, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said:

“Mental disorders, such as depression, are more common in people nearing the end of their life. Delirium is more common… Hopelessness is a common symptom of depression”,

and people’s capacity and consent can be affected when they are going through that condition. I can categorically confirm that I have seen that in my own practice. A person could be absolutely normal, but when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, that can have an impact on their mental health. We have heard about post-traumatic stress disorder and many other events that can have an impact on people’s mental health and, in turn, on their decision making and capacity.

If the Bill enters the statute book, we should ensure that at least one of the doctors assessing a terminally ill adult who wants to use the legal mechanism to end their life is properly qualified to carry out mental capacity assessments. I know from my own experience that psychiatrists deal with complex mental capacity assessments and other cases every day. For example, psychiatrists who work in accident and emergency departments regularly see people who are intent on ending their life—that is the bread and butter of their work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, which is about the second, independent doctor. We debated amendment 20 earlier, and I am genuinely very pleased that the promoter of the Bill accepted that amendment. Some of what I would like to say now will be repetition, because it is a similar amendment, but I will try to keep my remarks contained and shorter.

I am not sure whether the promoter of the Bill is planning to accept amendment 21 as well as amendment 20 —for both doctors. I will be happy to give way if she wants to clarify that now.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am indeed happy to accept amendment 21 as well.

[Naz Shah]

Oh, perfect. I am really pleased that my hon. Friend will accept both amendments 20 and 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Amendment 21 is about training. Although I welcome the amendments being accepted, my concern is that the amendment for training does not go far enough. We are talking about repeated coercion here, and my hon. Friend’s intention with the amendment was for people to be trained in picking up repeated coercive control. That is very different from domestic abuse, in terms of its manifestation and how it is picked up. From lots of evidence we have received, both written and oral, we know that coercive control is hard to detect. When it is repeated coercive control, it is even harder.

I want the Bill to be strengthened, especially when it comes to minoritised communities and older people. From a safeguarding perspective, the Bill’s impact is very gendered. It is International Women’s Day this week, and this is a very heightened issue. We celebrate women in this place because we do not have equality for women in our systems, across the globe and in this country. From the research and evidence we have had, we know that this Bill would impact more upon women, so it is important that we extend the training. As I suggested earlier, I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to look at tabling another amendment and strengthening this safeguard, because I really want to get this one right.

Although I talked about this earlier, there are some statistics on suicide that I did not mention, which is why I want this training. Only this afternoon, I came across some research from the Kent and Medway NHS trust. In addition to research from last year, it has been found that women will kill themselves when they experience domestic abuse. For the first time, the number of women killing themselves as a result of domestic abuse has overtaken the number of women who are killed from domestic violence in intimate partner relationships. Bear with me—I will return to the research from the Kent and Medway trust in a moment, because I cannot seem to locate the statistics I wanted to point out. Either way, I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to get this Bill right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Under amendment 56, the second independent doctor would be required to assess whether the person seeking assisted dying would be liable for detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. If they are liable to be detained, the necessary statement cannot be made for the assisted dying process to continue. Assessment under the Mental Health Act requires consideration of someone’s mental disorder and the risk of harm they present to themselves or others if they are not admitted and/or treated for their mental disorder.

Someone can be detained under the Mental Health Act both with and without capacity. Many people could be considered liable to be detained, but would not actually be detained if, for example, they could receive treatment for their mental disorder in the community. Members should be aware that the Mental Health Bill before Parliament, which will soon leave the Lords and come to this place, includes plans to strengthen and clarify the criteria for detention.

Amendment 57 would require the independent doctor to undertake the second assessment jointly with the co-ordinating doctor. If they are unable to, they would be required to confer before completing the assessment. In the Bill as currently drafted, the second assessment is intended to be conducted independently of the first.

I now turn to the famous amendment 1. As the Bill is currently drafted, the second doctor, known as the independent doctor, must be a “registered medical practitioner” who

“has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify”.

The amendment intends to make it a requirement that the second assessment is conducted by

“a registered medical practitioner who is registered in the specialism of psychiatry”.

Operationally, focusing on one medical specialty may have workforce implications that the Government would need to work through, should this Bill pass with that amendment.

Amendment 197, along with amendment 198, place

“a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required in order to act as the independent doctor.”

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on these amendments to ensure that the legislation is robust and workable. Amendment 198 specifies:

“The regulations must include training about…assessing capacity”

and

“assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

Under amendment 58, the second independent doctor would have to be an approved medical practitioner under section 12 of the Mental Health Act. A section 12 -approved doctor is

“a practitioner approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder”.

Their role is to make a medical recommendation, which is part of the process of determining whether someone is liable to be detained under the Act. Section 12-approved doctors are also eligible to carry out mental health assessments as part of the deprivation of liberty safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act. The objective of the mental health assessment is to ensure that the person is medically diagnosed as being “of unsound mind” and so comes within the scope of article 5 of the European convention on human rights, the right to liberty.

The purpose of amendment 428 is to impose an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the independent doctor is proficient in the Welsh language, if services or functions in the Bill are to be provided to an individual in Welsh in Wales. This mirrors amendment 427, which we have already debated. The amendment does not make clear who is obliged to ensure that these steps are taken or who will assess and enforce whether “fluent proficiency” is met. This may reduce the pool of registered medical practitioners able to carry out the function of an independent doctor under the Bill.

It may be helpful to note again that, regardless of this amendment, under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, the NHS in Wales has a statutory duty to deliver its services to the public in both Welsh and English. That legislation gives the Welsh language official status in Wales, and it states that individuals in Wales

“should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so.”

The Welsh Government’s active offer for health is intended to support all staff across NHS Wales to provide a service in Welsh for patients without them having to ask for it. Of course, I will add that we have agreed to have further discussions on these points with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and I look forward to them.

Amendment 21 would require that a registered medical practitioner could act as an independent doctor only if they have undertaken training on identifying domestic abuse. Should this amendment be accepted, it would require setting up training mechanisms to equip registered medical practitioners who want to act as independent doctors with the knowledge and skills needed to identify domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. I hope those observations were helpful for the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will not test the patience of the Committee by repeating the Minister’s comments on amendments 197 and 198, but he is absolutely right that they relate to the duty imposed on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required to act as the independent doctor. I hope that Committee members can support them.

Amendment 21 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, and further to my comments this morning on the very similar amendment 20, I am very pleased to support amendment 21. We have spoken a lot about the training requirements for the provisions of the Bill, and I firmly believe that we have to set ourselves the very high standard of having the best training that we possibly can for medical practitioners involved in the processes set out in the legislation. It is vital because only those medical practitioners who have chosen to undergo such training would be allowed to play the role of assessing doctors.

We have already discussed many of the components that will be required in that training, but it must include assessing capacity and detecting coercion or pressure, which is in line with this amendment, so I am very pleased to support it in that regard. Doctors must have appropriate qualifications and experience to ensure that those seeking assistance under the legislation are in the best possible hands throughout.

I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury about the wider benefits of such training, which is a really important point to make. It feeds into the wider benefits that there would be for not just the health service but society as a whole. It also feeds into the work that is being done by the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls—I just had to google the fancy title that she goes by nowadays. There is a broader conversation to be had about society and the role of training for coercive control, financial abuse and domestic abuse. I support amendment 21, along with my amendments 197 and 198.

Amendment 56 negatived.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move amendment 301, in clause 8, page 4, line 39, leave out “7” and insert “14”.

This amendment would increase the period of reflection to 14 days.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Roger.

Amendment 301 would prolong the first period of reflection, after which point the independent doctor can conduct the second assessment. In the original draft of the Bill, the first period of reflection is seven days, but the amendment would extend that period to 14 days. That means 14 days would have to pass between the time that the co-ordinating doctor has made their statement following the first assessment, and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.

Amendment 317 would increase the duration of the period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration from 14 days to 28 days. It relates to cases where a person’s death is not reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration.

Amendments 314 and 315 would increase the duration of the second period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration, in cases where a person’s death is reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration, from 48 hours to seven days. They would also introduce a requirement for a mandatory immediate referral for urgent specialist palliative care. The requirement would be introduced into the definition of the second period of reflection. It is unclear what impact it would have on the duration of the period of reflection. The amendments do not say who should be responsible for making the referral or where it should be recorded. The drafting is also ambiguous as to what happens if a person does not consent to such a referral or care.

I hope these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments put forward by various Members. Whether these amendments should form part of the Bill is a matter for the Committee to decide.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing to add on this group of amendments. I am confident that the Bill as drafted already includes significant periods of reflection. Bearing in mind that we are putting dying people through a very lengthy process already, I remain confident that the periods of reflection are adequate as set out in the Bill.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I have a couple of additional comments. We talked last week about the reflection periods. I referred to the fact that when even someone buys something from a shop, they have 28 days to return it; when they are deciding on whether to have an assisted death, there is a great deal more at stake. During that debate, someone asked, “What if someone had a prognosis of just one month?”, but clause 13 has an option for a fast-track process in that situation—the person would be able to access the service in 48 hours.

I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, who said that we have enough reflection periods in the Bill. Yes, there are reflection periods, but they come after the panel’s decision. The reality is that the NHS is under so much duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that getting an appointment with another GP in seven days is unlikely; it is unlikely to happen given how uncommon that is at the moment. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to prioritise those who require medical intervention to keep them well, to prevent hospital admission, or to stop them deteriorating or even dying.

The Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. In some cases, a medical appointment may need to take priority over an appointment for an assisted death. If someone who is dying has longer—even just a further week—in which to reflect, it removes the pressure from GPs and consultants, and enables them to prioritise properly their patients. It does not build up false expectation in patients that they have a right to a rapid consultation process. Likewise, we know that it can currently take a few weeks for patients to see another consultant, if not months or even over a year. It is therefore more helpful for the patient to have a more realistic period of reflection before moving to the next stage of their assessment.

Issues of such intensity as someone planning to take their own life should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions and conversations can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given this opportunity. In their first raising the matter with a doctor, the doctor would have provided a lot of information about alternatives to the patient, such as what treatment options would be available. Perhaps they would have had a discussion with a palliative medicine consultant to review their options. There needs to be time for a patient to really reflect on all this new information. If the patient does want to explore assisted dying, there will also be all the conversations about drugs and their impact, which we will come to when we discuss later clauses.

Amendment 317 to clause 13 seeks to increase the reflection period from 14 days to 28 days. I gently suggest that we should have the reflection period before the decision, whether it be by the judge or a panel, to give people the right amount of time to consider; currently, the reflection period is afterwards. This is such a monumental decision that people should be able to contemplate all other options available. As it is, the process is rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of concentrating on getting through the stages. I appreciate that others have suggested that once we have got past that stage, with the paperwork and all those things out of the way, then there is time to reflect. During the process, however, the patient has not had time to consider the options in making their decision. I am not convinced that there is enough reflection during, as opposed to after, the process.

Amendment 314 seeks to increase the reflection period from 48 hours to seven days for patients who have been given a month to live. In that case, seven days is quite adequate time to reflect on the information they have received to make informed choices. If this is about autonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has talked about many a time, it is important for people to have choices. To have that autonomy is surely to have the options in front of us and be able to consider them in detail.

In considering whether to sit on this Bill Committee, I slept on the decision. I can usually make instantaneous decisions, but knowing the amount of work, knowing that I was new to the subject, and knowing the things that I knew then—not the things that I know now—it was a big decision for me. I was even thinking about how I would manage the workload. We are talking about something that is not at all comparable. We are talking about somebody who will be taking a decision to potentially exercise the right—if the Bill becomes law—to an assisted death. That is really important for me.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.

Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed,

(ii) the coordinating doctor,

(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);

subsection (2)(a)

(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;

(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 348 seeks to add an additional requirement to clause 8(5). This would mean that, where the independent doctor is satisfied that the requirements under clause 8(2) have been met, they must

“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”

Some elements of amendment 348 duplicate requirements that already appear in the Bill, such as the requirement in clause 8(5)(b) for the doctor to inform the co-ordinating doctor of the outcome, including providing a copy of the statement.

The amendment would also overlap with the requirements in clause 16 for the co-ordinating doctor to make entries in the person’s medical record that must include the original statement or declaration. Where the co-ordinating doctor is not with the person’s GP practice, they must also give notice to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice of the outcome of the assessments.

Amendment 303 seeks to prevent a person from seeking multiple second assessments from different independent doctors. It places a requirement on the independent doctor to confirm

“that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”

This amendment creates the risk of a medical practitioner inadvertently committing an offence if there is no centralised record-keeping. It may also have the impact of preventing the person seeking assistance from obtaining a second opinion, as provided for in clause 10. Under the amendment, as drafted, it is unclear how this is intended to interact with the possibility of an independent doctor’s becoming unable or unwilling to continue to act as the independent doctor following the second assessment, when an alternative independent doctor may therefore be required.

On amendment 458, as the Bill stands, clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement confirming that they are satisfied that matters in clause 8(2)(a) to (e) are met, the co-ordinating doctor may refer the person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6), and is able and willing to carry out an assessment mentioning clause 8(2). The effect of the amendment is to restrict the circumstances in which the co-ordinating doctor can make a referral under clause 10(1) to a different registered medical practitioner to only when there has been a material change of circumstances. It is not clear from the amendment who is required to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances and/or how that will be proved. That may cause some uncertainty for the co-ordinating doctor.

I now turn to amendment 459. Clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria in clause 8(2)(a) to 8(2)(e) when conducting the second assessment, the co-ordinating doctor may, if requested to do so by the person who made the first declaration, refer that person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out an assessment of the kind mentioned in clause 8(2).

The effect of the amendment is that, where such a referral is made to the registered medical practitioner under clause 10(1), the co-ordinating doctor is required to provide them with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal. If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree. The two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under the Bill, and to the commissioner. This additional requirement for reports on the reasons for refusal or differences in opinion may make the process of seeking assistance longer and add to capacity demands on co-ordinating and independent doctors.

Turning to amendment 460, clause 10(3) provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement mentioned in clause 8(5), the co-ordinating doctor may make one referral for a second opinion. The effect of the amendment is to remove the word “particular” from clause 10(3), which says that only one second opinion may be sought

“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person.”

The amendment is unclear and could have several possible effects in practice. For example, it could have the effect of limiting the circumstances in which a referral can be made under clause 10(1) to the first time a person makes a first declaration.

I hope that these observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the other amendments in the group; however, I listened carefully to the debate on amendment 459 and the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister. My view on that amendment has changed: I do think independence is really important in the doctor’s opinions during the normal process that the Bill sets out. However, it is a really fair point to make that if the independent doctor refuses the patient, there needs to be transparency about that, and it is important that everybody involved in the process can see how that decision has been made. That is a really valid point. It is a good example of how this Bill Committee is operating, and should be operating, in that we have been listening to different views and opinions.

I take on board the Minister’s point on capacity. We need to be aware of that. We will hopefully debate the third layer later today. That layer may be a panel of experts who are there to oversee the full picture of the patient journey. For them to see what has happened with the doctors that they have interacted with is very important. Therefore, I am minded to support amendment 459.

[Danny Kruger]

I want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. It is relevant to the whole debate about whether we are talking about a medical treatment at all. He made the point, in respect of the question of a second or subsequent referral to an independent doctor, that it is appropriate in medicine to have second opinions; he said that that is normal in medicine, and he is absolutely right. Indeed, there is nothing to stop a patient seeking a third, fourth or any number of opinions if they want to do that and can get a doctor to consider them. The fact is that what we are discussing here is not a medical diagnosis—that is not what is being asked for when someone goes to see the second doctor, or indeed the first. What they are asking for is permission to proceed with the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am satisfied that the items contained within the clause have been adequately debate. I do not therefore propose to permit a clause stand part debate.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Doctors’ assessments: further provision

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert

“, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”.

This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert

“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.

This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.

Amendment 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”

Amendment 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—

(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;

(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.

(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 201 provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant, which makes sense. Amendment 422 requires an assessing doctor to make such inquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. Amendment 423 requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

The amendments seek to emphasise the importance of taking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the assessments by both doctors. The Bill as drafted provides that the assessing doctor must

“make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate”

when making the first and second assessments. With the amendments, I have sought to strengthen that language, by being much more explicit and making specific reference to consulting health and social care professionals. I have done so in response to the evidence we have received from professionals such as nurses and social workers, who often spend a significant amount of time with terminally ill adults.

It is clearly right that the assessing doctors should have access to all relevant details of a person’s medical records. If the records show that the person has recently been receiving health or social care, that may impact their application, so the doctors have to consult the providers of that care. As is the case at all stages in the process, records should be kept of any and all such discussions, and reports should be shared where appropriate.

Taken together, the amendments would ensure that the doctors’ assessments are thorough and comprehensive, and have taken into consideration the views and opinions of any wider health and social care team that may be working with a patient.

[Danny Kruger]

I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to speak to the amendment in her name, but I state clearly that I very much support it. In my view, it is very important that the doctor asks the simple question of the patient, “Why do you want an assisted death?” The question is not being asked at the moment.

I respect the points that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just made about amendment 201, and that the amendment may be intended to focus assessments on the information that is relevant. Nevertheless, it would introduce subjectivity into what is deemed relevant, and by narrowing the scope of the review of patient records, it could unintentionally allow for incomplete assessments, thereby undermining the safeguards that we all want to see. The risk is that potentially crucial medical history, including past mental health concerns, poor coercion indicators or undisclosed diagnoses, might be overlooked.

I call the Committee’s attention to the evidence from the British Geriatrics Society, which raised concerns that the definition of terminal illness in the Bill is often vague and risks misclassification, especially for older patients. Limiting the review of medical records could exacerbate that issue, as doctors may not have a full picture of the patient’s long-term prognosis and their mental health history. The General Medical Council has called for strong regulatory oversight to ensure that eligibility assessments are thorough.

Allowing doctors to determine which records are relevant, without standardised criteria for that judgment in the Bill, risks inconsistency and potential misdiagnosis. The criteria should include diagnosis and prognosis, treatment history, consultation, second opinions and mental health history. Consideration should also be given to disclosures of domestic violence and abuse, or patterns in medical records that might indicate domestic abuse without explicit disclosure, such as frequent visits for unexplained pain, chronic pain complaints, mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression, inconsistent explanations for injuries, and multiple visits to different healthcare providers. All of that should be properly considered by the assessing doctor.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the Netherlands, 1% to 2% of assessments annually—a significant number when we consider the volumes we are talking about—are deemed “not careful” under the law. Other countries do not have adequate ability to look into the data, but that is significant, and it is often due to inadequate consultation or documentation. I also draw attention to the fact that in our country, I am afraid to say, the cause of death listed by doctors is too frequently inaccurate. Analysis of postmortems suggests that one in 20 deaths have been wrongly recorded. Clearly, mistakes are made in medical records, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to require doctors to give complete consideration to the full medical history of the patient.

I recognise very much that we are trying to create a Bill that works in practice; nevertheless, I think we can emphasise streamlining and efficiency at the expense of patient safety, and we are doing that here. If we tell doctors that they are only required to sift through records that appear relevant to them—a quick skim of recent notes, a glance at the obvious items in a medical history—that may sound efficient, streamlined and practical, but it is likely to leave the vulnerable exposed, in particular when social workers and psychiatrists are not involved at this early stage, as they plainly should be. No multidisciplinary team is looking at the patient at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.

Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.

We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment

“if they consider that there is a need”.

I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.

There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.

There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member’s point about recording those consultations, amendment 423 states in its proposed new subsection (2B):

“Where an assessing doctor consults a professional…the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”So the consultation is recorded.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is very welcome. My concern is that there is no obligation to do anything about it. There is no obligation for the doctor to integrate the conclusions of the additional professionals that they have consulted into their treatment. I recognise that that provision is valuable and I welcome the amendments, but I suggest that they do not go far enough.

Let me use a hypothetical example to bring my point home to the Committee. Imagine a woman with terminal lung cancer asking to end her life. Her assessing doctor considers consulting a palliative care specialist for symptom control or a social worker to check on her home life, but decides, “My notes are enough. There’s no need for that.” What if the patient’s pain could be eased with a new approach that the doctor does not know about? What if her family’s pushing her to spare them the burden of her care goes unnoticed without a social worker’s input? The lady might die needlessly or be denied treatment unfairly.

The discretionary duty that the amendment would introduce essentially collapses because it does not force the broader scrutiny that patients deserve. The amendment sees the problem, but it is too feeble: it is too discretionary, too vague and too unenforceable for a choice as profound as assisted dying. While I will support it, I do not think it goes far enough.

Amendment 423 builds on amendment 422 by requiring that if the assessing doctor consults a specialist, a written record of that consultation must be shared, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley just mentioned. It is critical for transparency, consistency and accountability in decision making. In high-stakes cases, such as assisted dying requests, paper trails matter. Without a formal record, one assessing doctor might dismiss concerns raised by another professional without accountability—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it is remarkable how few jurisdictions around the world have such safeguards. The American model in Oregon, Washington and California does not track how many doctors a patient consults before finding one willing to approve an assisted dying request, so we do not know the extent of doctor shopping abroad. Canada’s system does not require refusals to be formally documented, making it difficult to assess the patterns of approval. Ensuring that records are available to both assessing doctors would add an extra layer of scrutiny and help to prevent doctor shopping.

However, while the amendment is a step in the right direction, it does not require an independent review of the records. Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, has criticised the lack of procedural rigour in oversight mechanisms, warning that assisted dying laws risk becoming a rubber-stamp exercise if refusals and approvals are not documented with transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has called for independent oversight of the entire process, not just a reliance on individual doctors. These amendments would partially address that, but would not fully resolve it.

Amendments 422 and 423 are welcome but otiose: they would simply give doctors permission to do what they should be doing anyway. If they are conscientious, they will do it anyway, and if not, they will not. It is slightly like an illegal gun amnesty: the good guys will not have illegal firearms in the first place, and the bad guys with guns are not going to hand them in voluntarily. I fear that we are requiring good behaviour of good people, and not requiring it of doctors who are not doing their job properly.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. When we adjourned at 11.25 this morning, I had just been discussing amendment 201, but I will start again.

Amendment 201 seeks to clarify the wording in clause 9 relating to doctors’ assessments. It provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records applies only to records that appear relevant to the doctor. The effect of the amendment is to make it clear as part of the assessment process that the assessing doctor is required only to review medical records that are considered by the doctor to be relevant to the person’s request to seek an assisted death.

Amendment 422 would add an additional requirement on an assessing doctor to make inquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person and make such other inquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.

Amendment 423 would require the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals. These professionals should have qualifications in or experience of a matter relevant to the person being assessed, and they must be consulted if the assessing doctor considers that there is a need. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and to the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment. The amendment also provides that a record of any consultation with the specialist health or social care professionals must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

As the Bill is currently drafted, the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to ascertain that the person has

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

That is set out in clauses 7 and 8. There is also a power in clause 30(1)(a) for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in connection with

“the assessment of whether a person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life”.

There are requirements for the assessing doctors to ascertain that a person is making the declaration

“voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person”.

That is set out in clauses 7(2)(g) and 8(2)(e). Amendment 468 would supplement those requirements with a requirement for the assessing doctor to ask a person why they are seeking an assisted death. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing further to add.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points because he helps me to direct my argument. It is essential to discuss the evidence from abroad about the complications that arise from assisted suicide, but the evidence is very patchy: we know what we know, but we don’t know much. There is a complete dearth of evidence, including in Australia. When Australians gave evidence to the Committee, it was put to them, accurately, that there is a great lack of adequate data gathering in Australia, as in other countries too. So when he says there have been no complications in Australia, what he means is that there have been no reports of complications in Australia. As we always need to point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That question was indeed put to the experts from Australia, but actually they were quite clear that there is a huge amount of evidence. Indeed, there is a very robust reporting mechanism in Australia—the best in the world, I suggest—so there is a huge amount of evidence from that jurisdiction.

[Danny Kruger]

Let us not rehash the conversations that we had in the evidence sessions, but I would advise Members to review those conversations. Indeed, there is further publicly available evidence, which I am happy to share, of the problems with data collection in Australia, as in other countries. To the point of the hon. Member for Stroud about the evidence of complications that arise in other jurisdictions being irrelevant to our discussions, because of the lack of clarity in the Bill about what drugs would be used to bring about the assisted suicides that we are proposing to legalise, all we can do is rely on evidence from abroad, and I will insist on doing so.

As well as questions about complications and side effects, there is also a crucial question about how long it takes to die. In Canada, a study demonstrated that in 5% of cases, patients experienced a prolonged time to death. Another study showed that 50% of cases in Canada with available data—again, there is a lack of data—were unsuccessful within 60 minutes. It is clearly common in other countries for death to take up to or more than an hour.

The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers—the people who do it—acknowledged that patients who ingest assisted suicide drugs can experience burning, nausea, vomiting and regurgitation. I am not saying that that always happens, or that it happens in the majority of cases, but it clearly happens. It is therefore appropriate for patients to be properly informed of those risks, if they are associated with the drugs that will be used. We do not know what those are going to be at this stage.

In the Netherlands, where assisted dying or assisted suicide has been legal for 20 years, a third of people with assisted suicide deaths experience some adverse symptoms such as pain, restlessness, shortness of breath, secretions, nausea and vomiting—that is, a third of people experienced some of those distressing side effects as they died, so it is very far from a guarantee of a pain-free death. It is vital that people considering an assisted death are aware of those possible effects, in addition to the primary effect of the drugs which is, of course, to kill them.

There is also a question about the method of administration. People should know that where regimes use the intravenous route of a short-acting anaesthetic, that is also not without problems. People would understand, and potentially argue for, having an anaesthetic as the first part of the cocktail of drugs that will be administered, but evidence from abroad demonstrates that the anaesthetic induction agent, which is usually propofol, a drug that puts people to sleep before surgery, can wear off rapidly in some people, particularly in younger patients, those who are less ill and those who are larger in size.

In around two thirds of assisted deaths with administrations that use that technique, that anaesthetic is rapidly followed by a paralysing agent. The patient cannot then move a muscle and, unable to breathe at all, they die of asphyxia. Unfortunately, there has been no monitoring of patients while they are given those drugs to ascertain whether they regain consciousness as they die. They cannot move a muscle, so they cannot signal distress. We are unclear what the experience of the dying person is beneath the apparent calm that has been induced in them by the paralytic drug that they have been given.

We do know, however, that similar combinations have been used in judicial executions. Post mortems have shown, as reported in The Lancet in 2005, that the level of anaesthetic induction agent in the blood at the time of death was lower than that required for surgery in 88% of executed inmates. Shockingly, in 43%, the concentrations were consistent with awareness, meaning they may have suffered during the execution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 305 and 306, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.

Under amendment 305, a doctor would have to explain what effects the medicines would have as well as death. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, and what other Members have said about effects and side effects. I would first say: we do not know the side effects. There is no research into any of the drugs being used for the purpose that we are looking at—for assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever whichever jurisdiction calls it. We therefore cannot give a clear view of what the side effects are; they are largely unknown, as I understand it.

In addition, there are different drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned one drug, pentobarbital, which has caused huge concern. I did not know about the issue in Australia, but I know the evidence from death row in America, after Texas started using pento-barbital; there have been huge concerns and lawsuits there. I am happy to be referred to other evidence. In some cases, the effect of the drug has been described as akin to suffocating or even as being waterboarded or drowning.

Concerns have been expressed about the use of such drugs in other jurisdictions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we should be looking at all such jurisdictions, because this is something new for us. If we are to learn from other jurisdictions where assisted dying has happened and it has been okay for people, whether that is Australia or others, it is equally right that we hear from those jurisdictions where things have not gone right or to plan. That is important.

Clause 9(2)(b) states:

“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”,

among other things,

“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.

Amendment 305 would instead require that the assessing doctor explain to and discuss with the person being assessed the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their life, including how it will bring about death and any other effects it would have in addition to death. That is really important.

There are several relevant things that patients should know if they are to be able to make an informed choice. First, they should have as clear an idea as possible what the experience of taking the lethal drug is like. In some countries where people undergo assisted dying, they swallow a cocktail of drugs. Patients whose assisted dying process did not succeed have said that the drugs are bitter tasting. If this is to be the method used in assisted death in this country, applicants should be aware of that, because some people do not take tablets—they just will not do it. If other methods are to be used, doctors should inform patients of what the experience will be like to the best of their knowledge.

The second thing assisted death applicants should know is that they may suffer complications. We know from countries and states that have assisted dying that some patients undergo complications during the process. It has been said before, but I will repeat the point, because it is really important: there can be complications. People may vomit or undergo seizures. One assisted dying recipient took 137 hours to die. That is five days and 17 hours.

We do not know the full number of patients who have died very lengthy deaths in Oregon, because the lethal drugs are self-administered, usually with no doctor present, but just because there is no report saying that things have gone wrong, it does not mean that everything has gone right. Oregon also found that at least nine patients failed to die from lethal drugs. We do not know whether that is the total number—again, because the assisted dying applicants in Oregon self-administer drugs. We can say with certainty that complications exist, although, unfortunately, gaps in the data mean that we do not know how common they are.

Amendment 306 would change the duties of a doctor present during the assisted dying process. Currently, clause 9(2)(c) states that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person

“their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance”.

If the amendment were accepted, the clause would state that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance

“including the escalation of medication intervention”.

This is a point of great importance, both for the person seeking assisted dying and the doctor, who would have to be present for the process. It would mean that the applicant and the doctor would have to think through what they wanted to happen if the applicant did develop complications. Should the doctor at a certain point act to revive an applicant—for example, if the person seemed to be suffering extreme pain as a result of a lethal drug? Alternatively, should the doctor remain as an observer and, if it were clinically possible, someone to administer further pain-relieving drugs? Not doing anything is clearly not an option. Both courses of action might seem harrowing to the person seeking assisted dying, but it is something that they should clearly discuss with the doctor, because these situations could really happen.

There are clearly no easy answers to these questions, but if applicants are to take an informed choice over assisted dying and if we want to provide autonomy, they must know that these questions exist and they must discuss them with their doctors. We have talked a lot about autonomy for people with serious illness. Those people will not have autonomy unless they are informed in accurate detail about the possible outcomes of assisted dying, and these amendments would ensure that.

Ultimately, if someone takes a drug to end their life, they will either die or not die and be left in a compromised state. Are they then escalated to A&E, because leaving them in that state is not an option for any doctor—or does the doctor proceed to administer more drugs? What does the doctor do?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As clause 9 says, the doctor has an obligation to discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications, so that conversation would have happened with the patient. To be clear, the doctor cannot intervene to expediate the patient’s death. That is very clear in the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Actually, clause 9(2)(c) covers the complications but does not state clearly what would happen in the event of those complications. Would the patient still want to carry on down that path?

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear, it does say

“discuss with the person their wishes”.

That includes whether they would want the doctor to call an ambulance if things got complicated, or whether they would want to be left—so the doctor would discuss with the patient their wishes in that situation. Fortunately, it does not happen very often.

[Naz Shah]

Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier.

I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause does not set it out. In the usual sense, complications are side effects from medications. We have research and literature given to us and we understand the potential side effects. In this instance, we do not have a yardstick. I do not know whether the Minister can speak about the Government’s intentions—it would be helpful to have an impact assessment—and whether any research has been done in this area.

I am not convinced that clause 9(2)(c) actually covers this point, and I think the amendment would make the Bill much stronger. Ultimately, these drugs have not been tested—and for a very good reason, because they lead to death. We are in unchartered territory. When we are doing things that we have not done before, we cannot just pick and choose what we apply an analogy to. We need to be careful. We really need to consider the options to make this clause in particular much stronger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will do so with huge pleasure—thank you, Ms McVey—but I would be more than happy to take up that discussion with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire at another time.

On amendment 142, it is worth noting that options for the method of administration of the substance may change if a patient’s condition alters as they progress through the process set out in the Bill.

Amendment 362 would add to the list of matters that must be discussed at the first and second assessments by the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require the assessing doctor to include an explanation and discussion of not only how the approved substance will bring about death, as set out in the Bill as drafted, but the risk and nature of any possible complications, including pain. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” already states that doctors must discuss with a patient

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option”

when discussing their condition.

As it stands, the Bill specifies that the assessing doctor must discuss the individual’s

“wishes in the event of complications”,

which could include medical interventions. However, amendment 306 would go further and specify that medical intervention must be discussed.

I hope those observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will start with amendment 93 tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. He made a really important point about the language in the clause, and I am very happy to support the amendment.

It is quite clear that, across the Committee, there is no disagreement that a terminally ill person requesting assistance to shorten their death should be given all the information necessary to help them make the clear, informed and settled decision the Bill requires. That should include an explanation of the drugs that are likely to be used—bearing in mind that there may be more than one option available to the person when the time comes, depending on their medical circumstances—and how they would be administered. As such, I am minded to support amendment 142, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendments 142 and 93 both provide helpful clarity for the Bill.

There are good intentions behind amendments 305, 306 and 362, but I am confident that they are already covered by clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c). I do, however, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of side effects. Going forward, it might be helpful to look at that use of language. To conclude, I am minded to support amendments 93 and 142.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

You will be delighted to learn that I have nothing further to add to this debate, Ms McVey.

Amendment 93 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 305, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “about death” insert

“and any other effects in addition to death.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to explain effects the provided substance would have in addition to death.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than that I will not be supporting amendments 307 and 308. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley, for Stroud and for Sunderland Central.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—

(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;

(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.

(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

Amendment 415, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) When making an assessment under subsection (2), the assessing doctor must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters.”—(Jack Abbott.)

Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.—(Sarah Olney.)

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to refer the person being assessed for a mental capacity assessment if the assessing doctor had doubt as to the person’s capacity.

Amendment 370, in clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out

“registered in the specialism of psychiatry”

and insert

“a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms”.

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment corrects a typographical error.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Another independent doctor: second opinion

Amendments made: 203, in clause 10, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

“(A1) This section applies where the independent doctor has—

(a) carried out the second assessment, and

(b) made a report stating that they are not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 421.

Amendment 204, in clause 10, page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 44.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 203.

Amendment proposed: 458, in clause 10, page 6, line 45, after “declaration” insert “and if there has been a material change of circumstances,”.—(Sarah Olney.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 205, in clause 10, page 7, line 11, at end insert

“; but this is subject to subsection (4).

(4) Where—

(a) a referral is made under subsection (1) to a practitioner,

(b) the practitioner dies or through illness is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor, and

(c) no report under section 8 has been made by virtue of the referral,

a further referral may be made under subsection (1).”.

This amendment provides that a further referral may be made under this clause where a practitioner dies or is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor due to illness.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly to this small amendment, which provides that a further referral be made under clause 10 when a practitioner dies or is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor due to illness. In the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who has agreed to give a second opinion dies or—because of illness or whatever reason—is unable to continue before making a report into the case, it would be right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. I hope the Committee will support my amendment 205.

[Stephen Kinnock]

This is one of the amendments on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to ensure that the Bill is legally robust and workable. As the Bill is currently drafted, in clause 11 there is provision to replace a registered medical practitioner acting as the co-ordinating doctor if they become ill or die. However, there is no similar provision to replace a registered medical practitioner acting as the independent doctor should they be unable to complete their role.

Amendment 205 makes provision under clause 10 that a further referral may be made by the co-ordinating doctor to another independent doctor if the second independent doctor becomes unable or unwilling to continue to make a report of their assessment due to their death or illness, provided that the second independent doctor has not prepared a report. It would thereby ensure internal consistency in the Bill in relation to this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

This set of amendments relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to make provision, by regulations, for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they are unable to continue to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor.

I will turn first to amendment 461. Clause 11, as currently drafted, provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to make regulations that provide for cases

“where, after a first declaration has been witnessed by the coordinating doctor, that doctor dies or through illness or otherwise is unable or unwilling to continue”.

Amendment 461 removes the “or otherwise”. The effect could be to limit scenarios in which the Secretary of State could make provision via regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor. The Secretary of State could not provide for replacing the co-ordinating doctor in circumstances other than a doctor’s death or illness, which could include family issues or retirement. That would mean that the person seeking an assisted death may need to begin the process again.

Amendment 310 expands the list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. That includes notifying the High Court of substitutions of the co-ordinating doctor, where the co-ordinating doctor is unable to continue to carry out their functions. It should be noted that clause 11 confers only a power, not a duty, on the Secretary of State to make regulations about replacing the co-ordinating doctor. It is not certain that the matter of a substitution of the doctor would be covered in those regulations.

The explanatory statement for amendment 309 suggests that the amendment aims to ensure that a replacement co-ordinating doctor is required to carry out a new assessment of the patient—in other words, to repeat the first assessment made under clause 7. The amendment requires that the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) make provision for such cases. Although the Secretary of State has a power to make regulations to provide that the co-ordinating doctor be replaced by another doctor, that is not a requirement. The amendment assumes that there will be a replacement co-ordinating doctor, which is not a specific requirement of the legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly about amendment 461. A co-ordinating doctor is central to the whole process set out in the Bill, from start to finish. If a co-ordinating doctor becomes unavailable, a replacement would need to be found. There may be a number of reasons, not restricted to the doctor’s own death or illness, why that could happen. We have already heard a few examples—it could be retirement, maternity leave or anything going on in that doctor’s personal life. A close family member might fall ill or die, or something else might happen in the doctor’s life that forces them to withdraw. We have talked a lot about patient autonomy, quite rightly, but we need to think about the autonomy of the doctors involved in the process as well. It is therefore important that they have the ability to step away, as set out in clause 11. Additionally, I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about amendments 309 and 310. It feels as though those amendments do not necessarily do what was intended.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 206, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I rise to speak to amendments 407 and 410. Amendment 407 would leave out the word “may” and insert the word “must”, and would require the High Court to hear from and question all persons who made the application for a declaration. It is a probing amendment, which aims to question the guidelines for the judge to question and hear from some people and not all people. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I seek clarity on what the criteria would be for the judge to question some people and not others.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope I can provide some reassurance. This issue is covered by my new clause 21. The amendment, I think, asks why the High Court would not have heard from the patient. My new clause would ensure that the panel—as it potentially would be—will hear from the patient.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation.

I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be?

One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy.

By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

As I understand it, both in the context of the High Court—which has the ability to speak to whomever it likes—and of the panel, when we come to debate its role, that is a discretion. It is a requirement to hear from the person seeking an assisted death; it is a requirement to hear from the co-ordinating doctor. However, hearing from others is discretionary, which means that, if it is necessary in order to be satisfied that the eligibility criteria are met—which is what the scheme requires—in that context, under the panel’s or the High Court’s discretion, it may seek evidence from elsewhere. That is what the provision, as the Government reads it, is designed to do.

The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe puts forward clearly limits that discretion; whether that is desirable is a policy choice, but that is how it is intended to function. As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on these substantive policy questions, but I hope that is useful to members of the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I think I have responded to the hon. Member for Broxtowe on amendment 407 by saying that the concern will potentially be covered by my new clause 21. On amendment 410, it is also my view that, whether it is the High Court or the panel or whoever we end up having over the course of this Committee, that third layer of scrutiny and safeguarding should be able to hear from other people, not just the patient and the doctor, so I would not support that amendment.

[Daniel Francis]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 410, in clause 12, page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (6).—(Juliet Campbell.)

The amendment would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application for the declaration and the assessing doctors.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Amendments 432 to 434 would remove provisions regarding proxies from the Bill. They deal with proxies in the context of the High Court process. As a consequence, the High Court would be unable to hear from the person’s proxy where the proxy has signed the first declaration, and the person would be unable to use a proxy to authorise a medical practitioner to provide assistance to end their own life. Removing the ability for persons seeking assistance to use a proxy would limit access to the assisted dying process for people who, for example, have a physical impairment, are unable to read or are for some other reason unable to sign the declaration. As I said earlier, the Government remain neutral, but I hope that provides some context and an explanation of how the amendments would operate.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will be brief, because we will come on to this debate when we get to clause 15. To be clear, the circumstances where a proxy would be involved in this process are literally when somebody is so ill that they are unable to sign their own name, so it is a very limited set of circumstances.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Amendments 312 and 313 would make several changes to the process for High Court approval of applications under the Bill as drafted. Amendment 312 would allow a person who believes that the requirements of the Act have not been met to make that known to the High Court and to be heard before a declaration is made. The proposed mechanism is that the person would enter a caveat in any district registry of the High Court within 14 days of the application being lodged or received.

Of course we will come to later amendments, but under the Bill as drafted, the High Court has the power to hear from and question any person to determine whether the applicant has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and that they have not been pressured or coerced, so there is that mechanism to hear from others through that channel.

Amendment 313 would enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to make a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. As drafted, the Bill provides that any person may seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, including the decision to make a declaration, if they are adjudged to have standing.

Amendment 269 would enable any person, other than the person seeking assistance, to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court. The amendment would also enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to grant a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. The Court of Appeal would not be obliged to consider the matters set out in the Bill when forming its decision. It is important to say that whether with or without the amendment, any person may still seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, if they are adjudged to have standing.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

Could you just repeat that? [Laughter.]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope you are sitting comfortably, Mrs Harris; it is a pleasure to see you this evening. I rise to speak to new schedules 1 and 2, new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21, and their consequential amendments. These provisions relate to the introduction of the assisted dying commission, which would oversee the assisted dying process in England and Wales, and the multi-disciplinary panels of experts, which will operate as part of the commission, should the Bill be passed.

It has always been my view, and I have always been clear, that there should be a third layer of scrutiny and safeguarding in the assisted dying process, particularly given the significance of the change in the law. However, I appreciate that, if we compare the Bill with the many other models of assisted dying around the world, this is very unusual. Most jurisdictions have a process that involves two doctors, as the Bill does, but there is no additional stage.

There are different views as to whether a third layer is necessary; many other jurisdictions have processes that provide a very compassionate, patient-centred and well-safeguarded approach to assisted dying without it. Indeed, some of the most difficult emails I receive are from terminally ill people who are very concerned about the complexity of the process laid out in the Bill. They feel that it is overcomplicated and too bureaucratic to navigate for people who are in their dying days and weeks. I am very sensitive to that. I am also aware that the thorough process set out in the Bill will take time, and there will be people who embark upon it who will die before they can complete it, as happens in other jurisdictions. That is, of course, extremely sad.

I also know that, certainly in this country, people feel strongly that oversight and scrutiny of what we might call the initial medical stages of the assisted dying process are important. The challenge is achieving an appropriate balance between compassion and patient autonomy, and robust safeguarding—plus, of course, medical autonomy.

If there is to be a third layer, what should it look like? As the Bill stands, the third layer of scrutiny is a High Court judge, who would make the final decision regarding a patient’s choice to have an assisted death. I was, and remain, very confident in the ability of High Court judges to have that role, but it is fair to say that there is a range of views on the suitability of the judiciary to fulfil this function—not least from ex-judges themselves. It is important that we as a Committee acknowledge that.

Barrister and former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption said that

“clause 12 is unnecessary and in some respects undesirable.”

He went on:

“The concern that I have about clause 12 in its current form is that it is not entirely clear what the judge is supposed to do…is he there in order to ensure that the two doctors have done their job and that the ducks are all in a row, or is he there to form his own view on all of those matters, completely independently of those who have already given their certificates?...It seems to me that this is a protection that no other country, so far as I am aware, among those that have authorised one or other form of assisted dying has included.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 172-173, Q222.]

Lord Sumption has been critical of the complexity of the process set out in the Bill as drafted, describing it as

“over-engineered, bureaucratic, and coldly inhumane”.

He told us in evidence that he disagreed with the inclusion of the need for High Court approval of a person’s application for an assisted death.

Former High Court judge Sir James Munby has written various articles in this regard. In his piece “Assisted dying: what role for the judge?” he asks:

“Should the judges be involved at all in this process? Is what is proposed a proper judicial function?”

He continues:

“Is this, indeed, truly a judicial function at all? Many would say that it is not. Where else in our judicial system does one find a judge, sitting judicially as a judge, whose function is not to decide some disputed issue or…to resolve some controversy but only to certify, as it were, that some decision taken by a private individual complies with the law? That, it might be said, is not what judges do and not what judges are for.”

He also expresses his concerns around conscientious objection and the challenges of ensuring

“an open and transparent process that may deter those for whom the scheme is designed, and a secret process destructive of the integrity of the scheme and corrosive of the judicial function.”

I absolutely agree that this is a very tricky balance.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady cites James Munby, who correctly identified the problems with the High Court process as it was designed and exists in the Bill. Is she aware that he also strongly objects to the amendments? He thinks that the newly proposed scheme fails on all the same tests, and he regards it as just as unsafe as the previous one.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is fair to say that there is a range of views on this subject from the judiciary. Ex-judges have commented, and I will come to those comments shortly.

In his evidence, the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said that the best safeguards were the simple ones and warned that patients could find themselves in “a bureaucratic thicket” at the end of life if there is too much to navigate. I am very sensitive to that. Responding to his comments, Lord Sumption said:

“I do agree with that…one suggestion that I think would make a significant difference…is the removal of the clause 12 stage.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 182, Q236.]

That shows the difference of opinion among former judges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I have made this point before, but I will do so again: it is very welcome to have these extra professionals involved in the process. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that it would be so much more appropriate to have them involved early on, at the assessment stage? We all want it not to be just a rubber stamp, but they are currently to be involved at the approval stage, at the end of the process, essentially fulfilling a judicial function of deciding yes or no. Why are these professionals not involved earlier?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I disagree: they are involved earlier. I have talked about the amendments we have already made around health and social care professionals. We have tabled those amendments, changed the Bill and added that provision on the basis of the evidence we heard. Remember that either doctor can speak to any other health or social care professional they wish. I would say that, actually, a multidisciplinary approach is taken throughout the Bill and, by ending the process with the panel, that is reinforced.

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said in his radio interview on 12 February, “I do welcome”—as he has confirmed today—“the additional role of more experts in the process”. Hopefully, irrespective of our different views, that is something that the idea of the panel can coalesce around. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to assisted dying, I hope that, in the interests of strengthening the Bill, he will be able to support the amendments today, because that is the job of this Committee—to strengthen the Bill, not to try to stop it, however strongly people may feel about the issue.

A significant part of the strengthening is through additional patient-centred safeguards. I firmly believe that the introduction of the assisted dying commission and the addition of the multidisciplinary expertise and oversight provided by the panels are a crucial part of that. The panel will look at the detail of every individual case and scrutinise the doctors’ reports. It must hear from and may question the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor; it may hear from and question both; and it must hear from and may question the patient themselves. I mentioned that in relation to the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe earlier. It is the default.

This was a difficult decision. I appreciate that to make the patient undergo another level of personal scrutiny could be viewed as cruel. Indeed, a number of people have said to me that they feel it will be too burdensome on the patient during what is already a deeply emotional, highly personal and stressful time, when they are likely to be in pain and having treatment. I acknowledge that. Again, this is about finding the very difficult balance between avoiding an unduly stressful bureaucratic process and ensuring that the patient is making, as the Bill says, a “clear, settled and informed” decision. There is a very strong argument that in order to do so, the panel should hear from the person themselves. That is the decision I have taken, addressing the concerns of colleagues who have tabled amendments to the same effect. Indeed, Lord Munby said of the Bill as it stands that

“the absence of any requirement that the judge ‘must’ hear from and question the patient is a quite extraordinary lacuna.”

I appreciate, though, that there will be exceptional circumstances, which we know may be the case if the patient is very ill and in their last few weeks of life.

The panel may also ask any person who appears to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person as it considers appropriate. It can basically ask to hear from anybody it wishes. That would obviously vary from case to case. Every case will be different, as we have discussed, and flexibility is really important. Only if all three members of the panel are satisfied that all the criteria have been met will it issue a certificate of eligibility. It must refuse to do so if it is not satisfied. The decision of the panel has to be unanimous. If there is any doubt from any of the panel members that the criteria have been met, the patient cannot proceed.

The patient then enters a 14-day period of reflection, before making their second declaration. It is worth reiterating that, as has been said previously, a significant number of patients get to that stage and never actually continue with an assisted death, but the comfort it provides enables them to live out their final weeks and days with a sense of reassurance. As families have described, a weight is lifted. Indeed, Professor Michael Dooley, who is the director of pharmacy at Alfred Health and the head of Victorian voluntary assisted dying pharmacy services, and who some of us met yesterday, told us that in that state in Australia some 90% of assisted dying patients also still access palliative care. That shows the holistic approach that can be taken.

There is of course another very important role for the commission, which is in relation to the monitoring and reporting of cases—something I feel very strongly about. The details are set out in my amendment 455 to clause 34. The commission must produce an annual report, which must include details about the application of the Act. That report must include details in relation to persons who have protected characteristics, and details of any other description of people specified. That would include data on demographics; statistics on the populations and characteristics of the patients who have chosen an assisted death; their age and gender; geographical analysis; data regarding the illnesses and diseases; how many cases were rejected; and how many patients did not complete the process and so on. When completing the annual report, the commissioner must consult the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, and anyone who represents the interests of people with protected characteristics.

The Law Society, which is neutral on assisted dying, says that if the law were to change, the system must have

“robust, accessible and independent safeguards”

as well as

“strong independent monitoring and review mechanisms”.

I agree. The introduction of a multidisciplinary panel of experts to consider all applications for an assisted death, overseen by a commissioner in the form of a High Court judge, sitting or retired, really does achieve that, and embeds a truly robust, multidisciplinary approach, which I am confident will put patients at the centre of the assisted dying process and provide additional scrutiny, safeguards and protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

As I make progress, I will speak to that point, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will return to my speech and expand on the point when I arrive at that juncture.

Sir James goes on to say that there are even graver problems with the panel procedure. I appreciate that his paper was published before new clause 21 was tabled, but it does not address all the concerns he raised. He referred particularly to new clause 16, but it is relevant to note that the problem he identified is left untouched by new clause 21. Sir James says of new clause 16:

“It says very little about the procedures to be adopted for testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”.

He goes on to say that

“it says nothing about who should exercise that function; nor about the nature of any independent evidential investigation and nothing about who is to undertake this and who is to pay for it.”

Finally on this point, he says that new clause 16

“says nothing about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors, and any other parties or expert or lay witnesses.”

The first point raised by Sir James is an extraordinary one. The panels will bring together three people: a lawyer, a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker. They will sit on what is a quasi-judicial body. The latter two will not necessarily have any experience of questioning witnesses and assessing evidence as part of a quasi-judicial process. The first person—the lawyer—will have such experience. What is going to happen? Are we just hoping that they will successfully make it up as they go along? Is there not a danger that in some cases the non-legal members of the panel end up deferring to the wishes of the lawyer, who has more experience in these matters?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making, and it is a shame that we did not hear from James Munby in evidence. I understand why he says that: he is looking at it through a judicial lens, because he is a judge. But this is not a judicial entity. It is a panel—it is not a court—and the range of expertise on it is actually a strength, not a weakness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

As I have stated before—I will make reference to that very point later—I would argue the safeguards are just not robust enough.

There should be a mechanism for trained and experienced people to find witnesses who might have relevant information. This could relate to another criticism that Members have made of the panel system: there is no provision for the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Sir James Munby argues that we should strongly consider this, saying that

“there must be a rigorous procedure in every case for testing and if need be challenging the evidence, including an independent evidential investigation, perhaps by the Official Solicitor, of the kind discussed in Conway. There are two reasons why this is essential in every case…Without this, it will not be proper for a judge to be involved in the process as a member of the panel.”

He goes on to make it plain that by “judge” he means the legal member of the panel.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I appreciate that this is slightly difficult to get our heads around, but we have legal expertise—we potentially have a judge, a sitting judge, a retired judge or an eminent KC—but they are not there in their capacity as a judge. I understand that that is tricky for people to understand, but they are there because of their skillset. That is the important distinction.

[Naz Shah]

That is the very distinction I am trying to highlight further, because the panel takes away the judicial oversight. Yes, they have expertise—there is no question about people’s expertise—but Sir James Munby says clearly that these people will not be sitting in their capacity as judges, as my hon. Friend just outlined, but just as experts. That does not provide judicial oversight. That is not what the panel does.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the whole point: Sir James Munby said he did not think that was the job for the judge.

[Naz Shah]

I will go into this in even greater detail in later speeches, but I will say now that although the process was not fit for purpose, Sir James Munby also says that this one is not fit for purpose. Neither process gives us the legal aspect—if anything, the Bill has been watered down. As I make progress, I will outline how I think Sir James Munby’s evidence is clear that the safeguard has been watered down. I appreciate the mood in the room while I insist on talking about this, but it is very, very important, because when we voted in the House to send the Bill to Committee, one of the biggest reasons why we did so was judicial oversight. Many Members have said that they let the Bill get to this stage because of that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Naz Shah]

I will make some progress. As it is, we have removed the judicial oversight. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the panels having expertise, but that is not judicial oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I think that by making some progress I will answer that question.

Turning to Sir James Munby’s question about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors and any other parties, experts or lay witnesses, each time a panel meets we will be asking three senior professionals to give up many hours of their time to scrutinise applications, listen to and perhaps question witnesses, and then decide whether to call further witnesses. I could ask many questions about funding, but I will ask just one at the moment. Both Ministers will be well aware that courts and tribunals in England and Wales face lengthy delays—in some cases, delays of years. Will the Government commit to adequately funding the panel so that applicants do not face lengthy delays?

Another question about the resourcing of the panels is just as important: can we make good on the commitment in the Bill to provide a consultant psychiatrist for every panel? I think the answer may well be no. We spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists during our evidence sessions, but at that stage my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley had not tabled the amendments that would create a panel including a consultant psychiatrist, so we did not ask the professional body whether it would be able to do so.

I have had private conversations with my team of senior psychiatrists. We asked whether England and Wales had enough consultant psychiatrists to serve on each panel. They said it was extremely unlikely. I would like to understand whether my hon. Friend consulted the Royal College of Psychiatrists before she tabled those amendments. If she did not, that seems an extraordinary omission.

Ministers keep saying that the Government will release an impact assessment only when the Committee has finished amending the Bill. I say again: that seems to me a most unsatisfactory approach to a Bill that would lead to such a huge change. Surely the Minister could ask civil servants to prepare a preliminary estimate of how many applicants there might be in England and Wales. It should probably be phrased as a likely minimum and likely maximum number. That would be extremely helpful. Surely the Government could do the preliminary work on whether the psychiatric profession in England and Wales is capable of meeting that demand. I say this in the light of my understanding that the present state of the country’s judiciary contributed to the removal of the judge in the first instance.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Just to be clear, that was not the reason for the change. We need to be very clear about that. The reason for the change was that it strengthens the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

That was not my understanding; I will come back to that point, because I am sure I have references to where that has been talked about. There is also the question of whether panels should be heard in public. Under new clause 16, the legal member of a panel would decide whether it should sit in public.

Finally, I return to Sir James Munby’s paper on this question. As I have gone through in some detail, he raised significant concerns about panel procedures set out in new clauses 14 to 17. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most of those concerns have not been addressed by new clause 21. Sir James was a very senior judge, who headed the family division of the High Court, and is someone we should listen to with the utmost attention on these matters. He said:

“I appreciate that some may point to the multidisciplinary membership of the panel and to an assumption that the function and process of the panel may (it is said) be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Plainly, it might be thought, it is an advantage that the panel has a multidisciplinary membership, and it is often said that three heads are better than one. Yet it would be a mistake to think that either of these features of what is now proposed are sufficient to overcome the very real problems I have identified. They are not. What remains crucial is the substance, not mere appearances. If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’—if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents—then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I will speak briefly about an important point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made. I want to get it on the record that I disagreed with something that she said. We heard a lot in the evidence sessions about the desirability of a multidisciplinary approach or a multi-professional team, and I listened particularly carefully to Dr Sarah Cox, who gave oral evidence to the Committee on 28 January on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. She made important and interesting points regarding the desirability of the involvement of multidisciplinary teams in relation to her area of expertise: palliative care.

I am anxious that the panel that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is now proposing is being presented as a response to the comments of Dr Sarah Cox in relation to multi-professional teams, when it is clear that she meant something quite different. My interpretation of what she said was that the initial assessment should be done by a multi-professional team; what is being proposed here is something that happens much later in the process.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear, the point I have tried to make with regard to the evidence that we received was just that there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach, wherever it happens.

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad to have had that clarification; however, it is really important to reflect on the fact that Dr Sarah Cox said that it would be considerably preferable to have the input of a multidisciplinary team at the earliest possible stage. That is not what is being proposed with these new clauses.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The point is that it has to happen at every stage, and I think the evidence that we heard was that it does happen. I know from the experiences of family and friends of mine who have had cancer that it does happen. There is a multidisciplinary approach; there is an oncologist, a nursing team and a doctor. That does happen, and nothing in the Bill will take away from that.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Member, but I think she is responding to a slightly different point from the one that I made.

There was further written evidence from Dr Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, on 25 February. He wrote:

“To clarify any misunderstanding, the current Bill does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.

Under the Bill, patient assessments are conducted solely by two doctors without input from a wider MPT. While an amendment proposes the involvement of a panel—including a social worker and psychiatrist—this panel is introduced only at the end of the process and does not participate in the patient’s direct assessment.

We wish to make it clear that the point that Dr Cox was making in oral evidence was that having two independent doctors, working alone, is not an adequate model to safeguard either patients or professionals, and that stipulating that the initial assessments must be carried within a multi-professional team model would strengthen the Bill.”

Committee members will have heard me talk in previous sittings about the need for additional safeguards around mental capacity and those suffering from mental illnesses. I very much welcome the introduction of psychiatrists at any stage, but my point has always been that that intervention must come early—we need the psychiatrist’s evaluation to be part of the initial assessment. I put on record that I do not believe that the amendments, new clauses and new schedules tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley address the concerns that I have raised on a number of occasions.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Member not agree that by accepting amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans, we have early intervention with psychiatric analysis at a very early stage, when either of the doctors feels it is necessary?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful for amendment 6 and to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans for tabling it. I put on record, however, that I do not think that the panel that we are discussing addresses my earlier concerns. I wanted to make that absolutely clear by highlighting the further evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine. The panel proposed by this group of amendments does not address its concerns, or the concerns of many other people who were saying that there needs to be a multi-professional team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. I thank him for putting the human being back at the centre of the process; sadly, in this Committee we can forget to do that. Early on, we had Nathaniel Dye here, who is a terminal cancer patient. He has just had a 12-month prognosis. The thought of making that man jump through hoops and over hurdles breaks my heart. I understand that we have to do it, but these are the people that we are actually talking about when we discuss the Bill.

[Jake Richards]

I agree, and I hope to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend made in her important speech. To mandate that a barrister instructed by the Official Solicitor, or indeed the panel, has to put questions to a person who may have only a few weeks left to live is not only highly inappropriate, but unworkable. What instructions is this barrister working from? Do they have to suppose that somebody who clearly has capacity does not? If not, do they ask questions about the circumstances of the person that would be asked by the panel in any event?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West suggested that the Official Solicitor would be working for the person. Well, the person is coming to this panel seeking assistance, so what on earth is the Official Solicitor or their legal representative going to ask of the person they are taking instructions from? To what extent would they be allowed to go on a fishing expedition, delving deep into a person’s relationships to assess any evidence of coercion? That goes back to my original point: what are their instructions? Who is asking them to do what?

I see the force in the amendments from my hon. Friend as to burden of proof, but I deem them inappropriate. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the more complex issues at play, such as capacity. The Mental Capacity Act states that where there is a doubt about a person’s capacity, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a lack of capacity, on the balance of probabilities. That is the correct approach. In any event, if the panel has any doubts as to capacity, surely it will be obliged—as is set out in amendment 6 to clause 9, which the Committee has just accepted—to seek further psychiatric assessment. It is important to note that the panel will have powers to instruct further expert assessment and reports.

If we implement the criminal standard, the doctors who are part of the process— not only the co-ordinating doctor and the individual doctor, but treating doctors, because we should always remember that someone who is terminally ill will almost certainly be receiving treatment in the NHS—will be working to a completely different burden of proof from the panel’s. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the innately inquisitorial nature of the panel’s role. That is important. It is very easy to look at the definition of the balance of probabilities and find weaknesses in it, but when we consider what actually happens in practice, I submit that those weaknesses are not often there.

The panel will have a conversation with the professionals and with the person and will consider the response. If doubts creep in, it will not just stop and make a decision on the balance of probabilities; it will continue to search. The more serious the doubts it encounters, the more evidence it will need for those doubts to be overcome. That is how the law has developed on the balance of probabilities in all other areas, and no doubt it will be the same in this area. Importantly, unlike with many other tribunals or courts, the decision must be unanimous, so if the social worker spots something that the psychiatrist or lawyer does not, the case will go no further.

What about the role of third parties? As I have set out before, this is a personal decision, but I also accept that no man is an island—a phrase often used by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. The process has to strike a real balancing act: allowing third-party information to be considered, but in a proportionate manner that respects individual autonomy. To my mind, the views of third parties are not relevant. Their views on whether the person is making the best decision for themselves are not relevant. This is not a welfare decision. Equally, it must be right that third parties—family members and others—can ensure that the panel has sight of the relevant information. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been given, the co-ordinating doctor will continue to be responsible for assessing new information, and their duties will continue until the final moments, as the Bill sets out.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 17 and 21 and to the four associated amendments. There is a lot to say, so please bear with me, but I will do my best not to repeat myself.

How exactly will the panel operate and function? I appreciate some of the explanations provided by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the point, but I have concerns about exactly what the panel will do and how it will do it. I will do my best not to repeat what others have said, but I reiterate the concerns as to whether it is indeed a better safeguard than the High Court one that was originally envisaged, given that it will have no full judicial role.

On a practical level, I question whether it is even feasible to find sufficient numbers of psychiatrists and social workers who are able and willing to perform this very burdensome role. As we all know, social workers do an incredibly important job, but people with their skillset are in extremely high demand. The hon. Member has made it clear that she is removing the High Court safeguards not because of the capacity concerns raised in oral evidence in January, but because she believes that this is truly a better and safer model.

I am also concerned that something that was originally meant to bring judicial oversight into the process has been replaced with something that is not judicial. I welcome more involvement from psychiatrists and social workers, who have a key role to play in the process, but I have concerns about whether the panel is the right place for it. Its expertise would be more valuable earlier in the process, when the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are performing their assessments, rather than at the stage with the legal oversight component. A panel’s involvement in a truly multidisciplinary approach during the clinical stage of the assessment process would have been a gold-standard safeguard, but unfortunately that approach was not put on the face of the Bill.

How the panel will operate is an issue of great significance. If we do not flesh out the detail now, when will we? We must have this conversation. I have looked for this information in the new provisions. According to new schedule 2,

“The Commissioner may give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.”

That is all there is. I cannot see any further information. Disappointingly, it is not even that the commissioner “must” give guidance—it “may”—so the operation of panels may change depending on who is in the role of commissioner. Given that this is a new approach and process, I urge the promoter and the Government to ensure that it is adequately fleshed out to avoid ambiguity.

When I imagine the panel, I am not sure what I am supposed to be imagining. Is it an administrative process—three people checking the papers—or is it more like a court, calling in evidence? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banbury eloquently set out the practical realities of the new provisions with regard to witnesses. According to new clause 21, the panel “must hear from” at least one of the doctors, but it does not need to question him or her, so what is it exactly that the panel is required to hear? What does “hear” mean, and does it cover anything specific? Does it cover all the items in new clause 21(2), or just some? The new clause does not specify.

It is the same for the patient. The panel just needs to “hear” from him or her; it does not need to question them. As I will come to shortly, in exceptional cases, even the patient will not need to be heard from. Again, I would be grateful to the Justice Minister for clarity on what “hear” means and what she would expect would be covered.

We do know that the panel must be “satisfied” of the relevant matters, yet how it is to be satisfied, and even what that means, is not clear. The only person who must be heard from is either the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor—just one person. That may be fine, or it may not, but I put it on the record here, because it is important that we are clear-eyed about it.

Compare the process with an employment tribunal. Someone litigating an employment claim would know well in advance the rules that the tribunal would apply, what test the tribunal would apply to the facts, the legal representation they can have, and how and on what basis they can appeal. That kind of clarity is essential, but I cannot find it in the new clause. I also do not know whether the panel is inquisitorial or adversarial.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I am very happy to clarify that the panel is not adversarial, but inquisitorial and investigative.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that confirmation. Now that I have that clarity, I will skip on.

One aspect of the panel that gives me cause for concern is that the panel would not hear from the patient themselves where there are “exceptional circumstances”. What are exceptional circumstances? The Bill does not say or provide any guidance. Many people with a terminal diagnosis who are seeking assisted dying could consider their circumstances exceptional; many undoubtedly will be too unwell to attend. That means that such panels could be making these decisions based on testimony from only one doctor. I am not for one second suggesting that people on their deathbeds should have to attend a panel—that is the point of exceptional circumstances—but I urge the promoter and Ministers to ensure that the much-need clarity around the meaning of the term is set out in order to reduce ambiguity in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Again, I am not sure I agree that that is what I am here to do today. I think my job is to set out the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed amendment, and I do think that the High Court judge safeguard, on the face of it, was probably safer. I appreciate, value and truly welcome what the new clause attempts to do by bringing in psychiatrists and social workers, but it has come in at the wrong phase of the process. I am not sure we are really getting the value of that expertise at the judicial point; we would have got that value at the clinical stage.

I ask Members to take what I am saying in the good faith that it is meant. My intention is to make sure that the Bill is as safe as possible. I do not profess to have all the answers, but I do have questions, and sometimes it is useful to ask questions, because there are others here who can answer them. I hope that, by asking questions when we are uncertain whether something is the right way forward, we will get a stronger piece of legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that we are here to ask questions, and I appreciate those questions being asked. On what happens earlier in the process, I hope she is reassured by the fact that we will now have compulsory referral to a psychiatrist if there is a doubt about capacity, and we have specified in the Bill doctors consulting other health and social care professionals, to provide for a holistic approach earlier in the process.

[Rebecca Paul]

I absolutely welcome those amendments. I do think they improve the safety of the Bill. As I have mentioned, I would have liked to see a truly multidisciplinary approach. At the moment, we have just included something in the Bill, as the hon. Lady says, stating that a doctor can refer to another specialist if they so wish. I would have liked to see that team pulled together, and that recognised in the Bill—we heard strong oral evidence about that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The other point I would reiterate is that none of that stops happening. We have heard from professionals and experts that that happens. Someone who has cancer will have a multidisciplinary team around them as part of their natural treatment process. Nothing in the Bill stops that happening.

[Rebecca Paul]

I take that point. In an ideal world where our public services were not under pressure, I might be more reassured, but I am a local councillor, and I am well aware how difficult it is to get social workers involved in all the things that they need to be involved in, because they are spread so thin. The hon. Lady lays out very well how things should work, but when I take off my rose-tinted glasses, I am concerned that they will not work like that in the real world. That is why I always go back to putting things in the Bill, because that forces them to happen—doing so here would force that treatment to happen.

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I now turn to my amendments—but I am afraid there are four of them, so bear with me. Amendment (a) to new clause 17 may be one of the most important amendments that I will speak about. This is something that I feel very passionately about. One of the most important questions we should ask is how the panel might deal with a family member with concerns, for example, that a relative was being coerced. Would the family member be afforded the status of a party to proceedings? Would they have a right to see the relevant documents before the panel? Would they have a right to be informed that a panel was taking place? If they are not a party to proceedings, is their status that of a witness? If they are a witness, do they have the right to observe proceedings when a panel sits in private? Do they have a right to be heard by the panel? Again, I am asking questions. I am not necessarily saying one way or the other what the answer should be, but those are questions I have.

None of this is laid out in the new clauses that we are considering. In fact, I suggest that in the struggle to balance autonomy with the rights of impacted others in the Bill, autonomy is very much winning the fight. I was struck yesterday by various Members setting out their fears that the first a family could know about an assisted death is when they are called upon to make arrangements for the burial. That would be an awful situation, and I strongly believe that families and loved ones should not be cut out of the process without good reason, especially when, no doubt, they will be required to bury the person and pay for it, as I assume the state will not take on that responsibility. I suggest that this point on funeral arrangements and expenses needs further thought as the Bill progresses.

From reading the Bill, all we know is that the panel may

“hear from and question any other person”.

There is no mechanism for family members to have a right to be heard or even to submit information. That needs to be rectified. The panel could reach its conclusions without hearing at all from the family. That is unacceptable. If someone’s mother, father, son or daughter were going in front of an assisted dying panel, that person would at least want to know and be clear about their rights and available options to feed into the process.

We then come to the big issue. What if a mistake is made and a relevant piece of information is not provided to the panel by the people it hears from? My amendment (a) to new clause 17 seeks to help the panel to avoid making the wrong decision, and give time for it to be remedied before the patient is dead.

--- Later in debate ---

To be clear, I am not saying that that is a situation in which an appeal might have been upheld. What Professor Kissane’s story demonstrates is that families can see things very clearly, in a way that professionals, even with training, cannot. Families know the person well, they understand their relationships and they know the subtleties of the situation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Is the hon. Lady reassured by the fact that, under the Bill, coercion becomes a criminal offence with a serious prison sentence? If any family members are in any doubt as to whether coercion is taking place, it is straightforward: they go to the police.

[Rebecca Paul]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, but the point I am making is not about coercion; it is about the subtleties in families’ relationships. I was trying to bring to life a situation—sometimes it is families who understand the relationships, the dynamics and the pressure points. It is very hard for professionals to get underneath that.

In a sense, families are the greatest experts, but the process as drafted excludes that expertise. Under my amendment, if a family member had knowledge that could make the difference between life and death, they would be able to apply to the panel. If there had been a clear error in applying the eligibility criteria, the application would be reconsidered. It is true that the panel will be informed by at least one of the doctors and that it has the option of hearing from others. Perhaps the panel will always be incredibly thorough and explore every avenue, but we have to legislate for every situation, including situations that are not ideal.

We can learn a lot from other jurisdictions. In written evidence, the academic Christopher Lyon from the University of York describes his experience in Canada. Dr Lyon writes that his father, who was “openly suicidal” and had a “history of mental illness”, qualified for medical assistance in dying in 2021. In Dr Lyon’s words:

“He was classed as having a ‘foreseeable natural death’ (i.e., terminal illness), my family was told, because he had momentarily skipped some meals at his residence and had an elevated but unremarkable white blood cell (WBC) count that the AD doctor suggested might be an infection that, if untreated, might become lethal, despite being a common side effect of his arthritis medication.”

Dr Lyon says that when he was informed two days before the event, he pushed for an urgent psychiatric assessment to be carried out. Dr Lyon has obtained a copy and says that it is

“full of errors. It claims he wasn’t suicidal, when he had a whole history of suicidality. It states he didn’t think he was depressed, and yet on the list of medications there was listed antidepressants.”

Dr Lyon’s concerns about his father’s prognosis, the assessment and other aspects of the events were widely shared, he says:

“After he died, the provincial regulatory college, police, and even other AD clinicians suggested his death was questionable or even wholly unlawful. However, privacy law and the continuing resistance from the local health authority have so far succeeded in blocking access to his medical records necessary for a full investigation”.

In Ontario, meanwhile, the chief coroner has published a report detailing the assisted death of an anonymous patient, Mr A, who had inflammatory bowel disease. He was unemployed, dependent on his family for housing and financial support, and struggled with alcohol and opioid misuse. He received an assisted death on the basis that his illness was advanced, irreversible and causing intolerable suffering. According to the coroner, the family were not consulted by those involved with processing the application, even though it was recorded that the family expressed concerns. Most members of the death review committee thought that shutting the family out was a mistake. The committee concluded:

“Engagement with family and/or close relations in the MAiD process should aim to be a key component of MAiD practice.”

We can hope that these were exceptional events, but they are the kinds of situation in which a panel might have benefited from a family perspective, which is the reason why I cite them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. While I was preparing my speech, as is often the way, I found myself wishing that I had tabled an amendment to add a legal requirement that the family be able to feed into the panel and share information. Perhaps that is something that can be picked up at a later stage. The nature of the process is that as we debate these things and think about them in detail, other ideas come through.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady mentioned a few moments ago that the family would make such an appeal only if there was new information, but her amendment does not say that, and it has no explanatory statement. Could she clarify what she meant?

[Rebecca Paul]

That comes under subsection (2) of my amendment:

“The Commissioner will allow the application for reconsideration if the Panel’s decision was—

(a) wrong, or

(b) unjust”.

It is implied that the decision is wrong because there is missing information. Missing information is one example; other things would enable an appeal, but the obvious and most likely reason in this instance would be that a certain bit of information had not been shared.

I am not saying that the amendment is perfect in any way. It is set out clearly in guidance on the private Member’s Bill process that amendments will not necessarily be drafted perfectly and that it is incumbent on the Government to take the spirit of what is intended and get the clause to an appropriate place to deliver that. I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that the wording works and is clear. I think the hon. Lady’s point may be that it is unclear; I am happy to work in any way to improve that clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

This Bill is really different from the legislation used in Canada, because Canada requires an applicant to be facing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved. The Bill before us requires a terminal diagnosis, so it does not open up the question of other kinds of suffering and whether they can be relieved. However, it will certainly confront the panel with the same kind of dilemma: what should be done when an applicant wants an assisted death, not because of illness, but because of personal vulnerability or social issues—housing problems, for instance? The panel will know that, if that person’s housing problems or some other crisis were to be resolved, the desire for an assisted death might diminish or even evaporate. It will nevertheless have to decide whether to issue a certificate confirming eligibility for assisted death.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I might have misheard, but I believe the hon. Member asked what happens when a patient asks for assisted death not as a result of illness. If that was the case, then they would not fall under the criteria of the Bill.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am making a point regarding if a person fitted the diagnosis in that they are terminally unwell, but it is actually the fact that they have got nowhere to live that is really driving the decision rather than the terminal illness. My apologies if that was not clear.

In Oregon there was the case of Barbara Wagner, who had recurring lung cancer. She had been prescribed a drug, Tarceva, which had an excellent record. It increased patients’ one-year survival rate by 45%. Oregon’s state Medicaid provider sent Wagner a letter saying that her insurance plan would not cover the drug, but would cover other options, including assisted dying. Wagner said:

“I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

Those are her own words, not my words. Recently in Australia, similar cases have been reported of people choosing assisted dying because they were put on too long a waiting list for a home care package. One man said of his mother:

“Her pride wouldn’t allow any of her boys to take care of her or to bathe her so she got approved for the assisted dying”,

and a few months ago proceeded with it.

There are many other situations where everyone would benefit from the panel having broader discretion. Think of one of the cases I talked about earlier—and have done throughout the various Committee sessions—where somebody appears to be a possible victim of coercion, or a case where someone with diabetes, for instance, wishes to bring themselves within the six-month definition by stopping treatment, or someone with anorexia brings themselves within the definition by stopping eating and drinking. The capacity safeguard would not defend them. The courts have found that people have capacity to refuse lifesaving treatment, even if their decision is strongly influenced by other factors.

Hon. Members may worry that giving the panel discretion is too open-ended. The truth is that, in our legal system, discretion is the norm. Whether in sentencing guidelines or in custody cases, the law nearly always recognises that sometimes a general rule has to be departed from. If the panel is compelled to make its decisions only by a checklist with no other option, the Bill is saying that the panel is less trustworthy than the courts. If this panel is to be a safeguard, we should be clear about how it functions. It needs to be open to correcting mistakes. It needs to have a clear standard of proof, which will protect people and not just hastily steer them towards assisted death, and it needs a wide degree of discretion if it is truly to be more than a tick-box exercise. I hope the Committee will agree and support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that statistic, which I was not aware of. It relates back to concerns that I have had through the process, particularly on learning disabilities and how a family member finds out during the process what processes would be open to them. In my opinion, it is unclear how the proposed panel fits into our legal system. Again, there are all kinds of quasi-judicial panels that do fit into our legal system, and they have an appeal process, of course. They would normally see two parties in a case. I hear what has been said this morning about Spain. It was put to us in oral evidence from a supporter of the Bill that we should look at that part of the Spanish model about having both sides of the process, although I accept that Spain has a very different legal system from the United Kingdom.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am interested in exploring the characterisation of the two sides referred to, because this is not about two sides. This is about an individual patient with a terminal illness. I am just interested in how we can explore that a little further.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that. As my hon. Friend knows, yesterday when there was an amendment on individual autonomy, I voted the same way that she did. But I will put the scenarios that I put in that debate yesterday when I came to my decision. The scenario that I have always considered is: what if the person with a learning disability in their 40s or 50s says, “I want to make the decision to relieve the burden on my parent in their 70s or 80s”, and the parent in their 70s or 80s is not involved in the process, but finds out about the process and there is no way they can intervene in the process? I hear what was said about JR, but there is no way, as is laid out in the Bill, that they can then intervene in the process and say, “There has been a mental capacity assessment, but we think that, given there is a borderline level of capacity, there may have been a position where a doctor has had to, under the Act, assist that decision to be made.” What would be the legal process for the parents in that case? These are the scenarios. As Members know, I am not somebody who opposes the principles of the legislation, but these are the scenarios that have brought me to this place.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The quick answer is that there would be an injunction. I hope my hon. Friend will also be reassured that the panel is coming towards the end of this very long process. In the situation he describes, the patient would have gone through all the other stages with the doctor. I imagine in that situation, in a psychiatric referral, the doctor would have said, “Would you consider speaking to your next of kin?” There are a lot of other stages prior to getting to this point, which I hope provides some reassurance.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that. As my hon. Friend knows, I supported amendment 6, as she did, and other amendments that strengthen the Bill in that way. I accept the right to autonomy. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gave the example of an appeal in Spain, but I do not think the fact that a religious group was funding the appeal in one case is an excuse for taking that right away, because there will be other people in Spain who have genuine concerns and want to go through the appeal process.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

On Second Reading on 29 November, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1019.]

There can be no doubt that the High Court judge safeguard was presented to the House as globally exceptional, unusually thorough and robust, as compared to other jurisdictions. It was also a prominent feature of the public campaign around the Bill. We were told it was a Bill designed for exceptional circumstances, with robust safeguards—the High Court judge being the pre-eminent one. It was not a trivial detail; it was the centrepiece of a safeguarding regime arranged around a small number of vulnerable people. Over 60 Members of Parliament are on the record as saying that it was this safeguard that helped persuade them to vote in favour on Second Reading.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I will stand corrected if this is not true, but my understanding is that Hansard will show a very different story. I do not think that 60 people got up and said on record that this element was why they were voting for the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

To be clear, I was not suggesting that they all said so on Second Reading, because not everybody spoke in that debate—nor am I saying that it is only because of this safeguard that MPs voted for the Bill, but there are 60 colleagues of ours who have cited the judicial safeguard as a reason for supporting the Bill. Indeed, I hope the Committee will agree that this was always presented as a very significant aspect of the safeguarding regime, if not the most significant aspect. I suggest it was the most significant, because it enabled people to argue that this was the strongest Bill in the world, given that other regimes do not have a judicial element.

I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I expect that I will oppose it on Third Reading, but I respect the Committee process enough to accept that the House wanted the Bill debated. Because I respect the process, I have not opposed clauses that concern the heart of the Bill, but we are now going to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley, Government Ministers and their supporters vote against this clause—the essential safeguard in the Bill, and the principal element used to persuade the House that the Bill was safe—standing part of the Bill. It is an extraordinary thing that we are going to see the Bill’s promoter and the Government oppose the centrepiece of this Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the hon. Member’s framing of this and it might very well be his perspective, but there were 650 MPs who voted on Second Reading that day, so I think it is unfair to represent colleagues who did not have the view that this is the central component of the Bill. There are lots of other components to the Bill that colleagues have certainly spoken to me about, and it is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to acknowledge that there are many other components of the Bill, but many Members, including the hon. Lady, cited this safeguard as an essential element of the safeguarding regime—if not the most essential. Crucially, it was presented to the House of Commons as such, and it is a central clause of the Bill, and the hon. Lady is now proposing to vote against that element. My view is that a change this substantial—a fundamental and radical change to the structure of the process that is being designed—should be presented on Report. The whole House should have the opportunity to discuss and debate properly whether that element should be changed. Every Member should have the opportunity to have a say on this central point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Of course that is correct: a small number of amendments will be selected for debate and vote on Report, and if somebody wants to table an amendment on this issue it might indeed make it through Mr Speaker’s selection, but the point of the Committee process is to consider the Bill that was passed on Second Reading and come back to the House with the Bill either unamended or amended. This is a very substantial change to the Bill that was presented and voted for on Second Reading. As I say, many Members supported this clause, no doubt including the hon. Gentleman.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point that we hopefully all agree with. The job of the Committee is to take evidence and look at ways of improving the Bill on that basis. This is a really good example of where we have actually done our job and done it very, very well.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not think the hon. Lady can say she has done her job very, very well if, after presenting a Bill, and after months and months of work and debate, including many hours’ debate on Second Reading, she suddenly decides that its central part is deficient. She talks about the opportunity for the Committee to take and debate evidence, but we have not had evidence on this new element—these new clauses and the panel process. There were vague suggestions from some of the people we heard evidence from that it might be appropriate, but although we heard evidence on the High Court stage and the deficiencies therein, we have not had the opportunity to properly examine the panel element that is now being introduced.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way one more time?

[Danny Kruger]

With great pleasure.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I will sit down after this. I will not take it too personally that he thinks I have done a very poor job, but the point is that we heard a broad range of evidence from professionals including legal experts, medical experts, psychiatrists and social workers—lots of different people. We have also had evidence come in over recent weeks and months that has added to that and has talked about these changes. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady must not apologise for intervening on me. I can hardly be one to object to people intervening. This is a very good forum for the kind of exchanges we are having, so I am very happy to take interventions. She is absolutely right that lots of evidence has been presented. I cite it myself all the time. Further evidence is coming in, and much of it is very critical of the new proposals. That is an absolutely fair point, but my point remains that we invited witnesses and had three days of evidence on a Bill whose core safeguard has now fundamentally changed—well, it has not changed yet, but I suspect it is about to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Ms McVey. I do not want to be facetious because it is a serious point, but lots of new points were made in evidence to the Committee, including some in favour of the Bill as it is and some of the amendments that I have opposed. We have had some helpful evidence that has helped to shore up the case made by the Bill’s promoter, as well as evidence that suggested otherwise, and some points in debate have been very well made. I was nearly floored by an intervention by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham yesterday, for instance. I do respect the points that have been made in Committee, including at the evidence stage.

My suggestion is that we should be doing this on Report, if we do it at all, because that would reflect the seriousness of the proposal and the fact that the House voted for the clause on Second Reading. There were problems with the High Court stage, as has been acknowledged, and others have referred to it in support of the change. I want to quickly acknowledge, perhaps in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, the points made by Lord Sumption, Max Hill, Alex Ruck Keene and Nicholas Mostyn—all senior barristers and judges. It became obvious that there were significant issues, particularly around the power of the court to investigate applications or to hear evidence on them, and about the capacity of the judicial system to cope with the demand.

It was clear that further thought was needed on the High Court stage. Indeed it was apparent that further thought was already under way. There is an interesting exchange in the record of the evidence sessions between the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and those witnesses, particularly Max Hill, who said that he was quite close to the construction of the Bill. That clearly shows, in my view, that there already was thinking under way behind the scenes that have led to these changes.

My view is that, rather than ditching clause 12, we should be seeking to make it work in ways that many hon. Members have proposed. I am afraid we just skipped over those proposals in earlier groupings on the clause because there was no point—we were obviously proceeding to the stand part debate and to eliminate the involvement of the court all together.

There were things the Committee could have set itself to address, but we have not done that. I hope you will excuse me, Ms McVey, for making what might be a cynical observation: I think the High Court stage was recognised as popular and as useful to the campaign to get the Bill through the House of Commons. It was predicated specifically on the point, which was clearly communicated and understood by the public, that this measure of assisted dying is intended for very few people. It is for the most exceptional cases: people at the very end of their life, in desperate circumstances, in desperate pain and suffering. Very few people need it. However, I believe this change is predicated on the real intent of the Bill: far wider eligibility than just that tiny group.

We have seen that through the rejection of a series of amendments that would have restricted eligibility specifically to that group—a group for whom we all understand the case for an assisted death; again, the public support it in those specific cases of people at the very end of their life, who are suffering intolerably. The Bill is not restricted to that group only, and that is why we need to redesign the system to enable this larger group to make use of it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is been very generous with his time. I am interested in how he can conclude that the eligibility criteria have somehow been expanded by adding an expert panel with a psychiatrist and a social worker.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry; I did not intend to give that impression. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is that we have seen the rejection of a series of amendments that would have restricted eligibility, or ensured that only certain people would be eligible: those for whom we all understand the reason for the case for assisted death. Whether our amendments related to the burden, the pain, or questions around capacity and coercion, our amendments would have restricted access to only the most desperate people.

On that basis, it would have been appropriate to have a High Court stage, because the High Court could have accommodated that lower demand. Given the opportunity that the Bill affords to a larger group of people to gain access to assisted death, it has become obvious—I presume, in the mind of Government and others—that there is insufficient capacity in the court system to accommodate the regime being instituted here.

I think the question of High Court capacity has been driven by the desire for a system that can cope with many thousands of deaths per year. I have seen ranges suggesting between 6,000 and 17,000 deaths per year. If Members have other calculations or estimates, I would be grateful to hear them. In fact, it would be good to know whether the Government have done any estimation of the numbers we are looking at.

It is not simply a case of averting those desperate cases of people who help their relatives to die by going to Switzerland or who assist them in committing suicide in other ways—we heard from Max Hill that only a handful of cases cross his desk every year. It is clearly the intention to greatly widen the scope beyond that desperate group. It is unclear what the overall number is, but my strong sense is that we are looking at many thousands, and for that reason, it has been decided that the High Court would not have the capacity to cope with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that absolutely central point. This is a judicial process, and a decision is being made. I recognise that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has correctly abandoned the claim that this is a judge-led process—because it is not—but the function of this panel will be essentially judicial, not least because the decision to proceed with an assisted death entails the people involved in administering it being exempt from criminal law and not being liable to prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961. We have made an exemption for what is otherwise a crime, and if they do not get the go-ahead from this panel, they will be committing a crime if they proceed. So in all essence, a judicial decision is being made, and it is right that we have the protections of a court.

Let me make a couple of brief points about the practicalities, and they have partly been made by others. The central point is that we do not know whether the professionals who will be required to take part in this panel have the capacity to do so. We know that the judges do not have the capacity under the current design of the law, which is an essential flaw—or we think they do not, because that point has been comprehensively argued by the judiciary and I suspect by officials at the Ministry of Justice. What we do not know is whether the psychiatry and social work professions have adequate capacity. There has been no impact assessment, and we have had a lot of comments from representative bodies expressing anxiety about the capacity of these professions to supply the panels.

The point I am trying to make is that we cannot, and should not, legislate in the dark. We should not draft laws in ignorance of these basic facts. We need to know whether the law before us is workable in the real world, and I would be grateful for clarification on that from Ministers when they speak to this clause. In my view, we need robust and clear data on how many professionals might take up the posts, and more importantly, we need the clearest and earliest warning of where there might be deficits that would compromise the entire system, particularly around the capacity of psychiatrists. We have a central problem with ignorance around capacity, but my strong view is that we do have a problem with capacity.

An important point was made by Alex Ruck Keene in evidence around the judge-led process, which we discussed earlier. His point was that it would not be possible for the judge to decline an assisted death on the basis of what he calls service denial—that is, there is not enough social care treatment or medical treatment available for the patient. If the reason why the patient were to receive an assisted death was that the local authority would not provide them with improvements to their home or funding, or that they could not get the medical treatment they wanted early enough, that would be a legitimate reason, or would not be a reason not to proceed with an assisted death. That is a very grave concern to us, and it is what happens in other countries. We heard this morning about evidence that when a patient is denied the medical or social care that they need to carry on living and living well, they are offered an assisted death. In those circumstances, I would really hope that the decision maker would conclude that it is wrong that we offer an assisted death, and that we in fact need to insist that they get the support they need to live well. I reference that because, as I understand it, there is no opportunity in the new clauses for the panel to decline an assisted death on grounds that it is being sought only because of the inadequacy of the wider care system.

It has been suggested that the judicial option remains, through the judicial review system. Other hon. Members have responded to that point, so I will not labour it. However, I want to make the point that new clause 17 makes judicial review less likely because it offers the opportunity for a sort of appeal. It is an appeal only in one direction—against a refusal—but there is a sort of appeal process in the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, if there is a JR, it is likely to take a long time. There is nothing about whether legal aid will be arranged. The state has proposed to pay for people to go through the assisted dying process, but is not prepared to pay anybody to challenge it, so they would have to raise their own money. It would also take a long time. It would be much simpler and better, whether it is a panel or a judge, to set up the system in a way that allows both sides to be told and that does not rely on a cumbersome judicial review system.

I reiterate that I support the multidisciplinary team. It is a very good thing that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has decided to introduce a proper stage at which a psychiatrist and a social worker will have to consider the application properly. I have concerns about how it would actually work, which I will come on to, but having a multidisciplinary team is in principle the right system. I stress that the professionals who made the case for multidisciplinary teams as part of the assessment process have not endorsed the new clauses. They are not saying that we have adequately met their concerns about the process.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not entirely sure who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but it is fair to say that there is a range of views across a range of professions. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

I apologise; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. No doubt there are representative bodies, whether it is patients’ groups or bodies representing professionals, that are satisfied with the new proposal. I do not know which—genuinely, I just have not come across them—but I have no doubt that there are some.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To clarify, the point that I am making is that there is a range of views across a range of organisations—many of which are neutral on the issue of assisted dying, full stop—and a range of views within each profession. We heard evidence from people working in palliative care with different views, and from medical people with different views. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, a number are neutral. I will be grateful if the hon. Lady can tell the Committee if there are any representative bodies working with the professionals who administer end-of-life care that have endorsed either the Bill as it was or the Bill as it is. I do not believe there are.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will check.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is going to check. My understanding is that all the bodies that represent palliative care professionals and end-of-life specialists are opposed to the Bill as it was and as it is. I think there are straightforward reasons for that.

Everybody agrees that there is value in the multidisciplinary team approach. The British Association of Social Workers provided evidence setting out what it thought was needed, namely an MDT working at the assessment stage. This is not that. It is very important that we do not confuse the provisions made under the new clauses with a multidisciplinary team operating at the appropriate moment in the process. We have to have public confidence in the process. It is very important that the composition of the new proposed panels is not conflated with the separate matter of a multidisciplinary team model. It would be very unfortunate if that confusion obtained.

The Bill, as drafted, rejects the involvement of a multi-professional team model for the conduct of the assessments, preferring two doctors working alone without input from a multidisciplinary team. I recognise that there are opportunities for them to hear from other professionals, but it is not a multidisciplinary team in any recognisable sense of the term.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Danny Kruger]

I will in a moment. I was going to finish by saying that it is not correct or accurate to give the impression that Dr Cox or the Association for Palliative Medicine supports the proposed approach.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is really important to be clear about this. I do not think anyone is suggesting that what is in the Bill will replace existing good practice. That is really important. We probably all have family and friends who are being treated for cancer now, and they are looked after and cared for by a multidisciplinary team. That team does not suddenly disappear, to be replaced by what is in the Bill; it can continue. The assisted dying option involves the two doctors, and I struggle to envisage any situation in which they would not work with the multidisciplinary team and add on, where appropriate and necessary, psychiatric intervention, social care and healthcare professionals. I always come back to the point that I do not think the two things will operate independently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I certainly do. That is exactly the scenario that I fear, and I fear it within the NHS too. Let us not imagine that every NHS doctor has all the time and the access to the wider specialisms that they would wish. Under the Bill in its current form, there will be a very strong incentive and a very strong personal instinct for compassionate doctors, who believe in the autonomy of patients and in respecting the patient’s wishes, to take at face value what they are told and not to seek the expertise that would happen automatically if there were a proper multidisciplinary team at that stage of the process.

My point is that we do need a multidisciplinary team, but what is in the Bill is not it. At best, it is half a multidisciplinary team. There is no doctor on it. There is a lawyer, pointlessly. There is a sort of quasi-MDT—a duo-disciplinary team—but it is in the wrong place, and it will not assess, which is the job it should do, but judge. It will not diagnose or advise in the way that a clinician should; it will simply decide whether the criteria have been met for an assisted death. That job was rightly given to judges in the Bill that the House of Commons voted for, but this Bill does not have the powers, the safeguards, the accountability or the independence of a tribunal, let alone that of a court.

As the hon. Member for Spen Valley candidly says, the panel is not a judicial entity in any sense. It is a weird creature, neither one thing nor the other: a quasi-multidisciplinary team, at the wrong stage in the process, for the wrong purpose. I have said that it is not a multidisciplinary team, but it is not really a judicial entity either, as the hon. Lady has mentioned. It is certainly not “judge-plus”, as was originally suggested. There is no judge, just a legal member—not a judicial member but a legal member, who might be a lawyer.

[Kim Leadbeater]

There is a judge—it may be a retired judge—who is the commissioner, who heads up the entire assisted dying commission, and there is a legal expert on the panel as well, as the hon. Gentleman said. That could be a retired judge, so there is legal expertise there. I think the hon. Gentleman also made the point that there is not a doctor on the panel. My understanding is that psychiatrists are doctors, but I will stand corrected if that is not true.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do apologise. There is indeed a doctor—a psychiatrist—but not a doctor specialising in their condition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have had two of them already.

[Danny Kruger]

No, we have had a couple of GPs. We have not had a doctor who is a specialist in their condition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

If needed.

[Danny Kruger]

If needed, there is the opportunity to refer to one. It is perfectly possible that the whole process of an assisted death could be done very well under the Bill—that is good news—but there is a very great risk that the process will not be done well, because there are huge gaps through which bad practice can creep. My specific concern about this stage is that we do not have the appropriate expertise on the panel.

On the hon. Lady’s point about there being a judge in the process, there is a distant judge who sits above a quango that appoints the panels. They take a view on a specific case only if there is an appeal against a refusal. They are not directly judging on the case, as the House of Commons was told would happen.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The reports for the case would go to the commissioner, so he or she would see the reports.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, but he or she will consider a reconsideration only on the basis of an application to reconsider made by the applicant. There is only one opportunity for an appeal and it can happen in only one direction: against a refusal. I will come on to the role of the commissioner in a moment, but in the great majority of cases there will not be a judge involved in the decision. There might be a retired judge on the panel, but that is extremely unlikely; it is more likely to be a lawyer. It is a judicial exercise that is being conducted, so it would be appropriate for it to be a judge sitting properly in a court.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Having said that the panel is not a proper multidisciplinary team, I agree that it is not a proper judicial entity either. It is a panel with judicial power to approve life-or-death decisions, but it is without a judge or the normal judicial processes that would happen in a tribunal or court. There is no oath being taken by members of the panel or by witnesses; there is no independent appointment process, so the members of the panel will be appointed by the commissioner; there is no power to order the disclosure of information to the panel; there is no power to investigate wills, financial records or anything like that; and there is no requirement to meet the doctors or even to discuss the case with the patient themselves, if the panel considers that appropriate.

There is also no appeal against an approval, just a one-way appeal against a refusal. That appeal goes not to an independent judge sitting in a court, but to a commissioner—an appointee of the Government, who has been set up to facilitate the whole system.

Let me turn to the role of the VAD commissioner, or the Vader as I think of it; I will not labour the point. They can be a sitting judge, which is good, but I suggest to the Committee that it is highly unusual for sitting judges to be appointed to other public functions that are unrelated to a judicial role. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on that. Judges can be appointed to a second judicial job, such as chairing the Sentencing Council, but I am not aware of many examples in which a sitting judge sits in a non-judicial function.

Having looked into it, I discovered that there are three exceptions to the rule. First, the Master of the Rolls holds a number of sinecures in relation to the keeping of the public archives and the payment of the national debt, so that is a non-judicial function that a judge carries. Secondly, the chair of the Law Commission is a sitting High Court or Court of Appeal judge. Thirdly, and exceptionally, with permission of the senior judiciary, sitting judges can be asked to conduct public inquiries. A singular public inquiry, which is time-limited and essentially judicial in its purpose of determining what happened, and which will of course operate in an adversarial way, hearing proper evidence from counsel, is the only exception. However, that is not comparable to the model being set out here, in which a sitting judge is being asked to chair a permanent quango—a Government body.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly the point? This is a unique situation, and therefore we need a unique system. That is the perfect opportunity to use the skills that a judge or retired judge has.

[Danny Kruger]

Throughout this debate, the hon. Lady and others have frequently made the case that we should stick with the existing systems, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the use of doctors to make decisions about healthcare. Now the opposite point is being made: that we have a unique system and we therefore need to tear up the current way of working. In this one case, I think we need to stick with the current way of working: in the British judiciary, the High Court of England is the appropriate body to make decisions about life and death. That is how it works in other major decisions of life and death. These are questions that go to court.

On the point about the VAD commissioner being a sitting judge, even when it comes to inquiries that judges conduct outside their role as sitting judges in court, my understanding is that the Executive do not pick whichever sitting judge they want for the role. Instead, they request that the Lady Chief Justice make a judge available, and the Lady Chief Justice will select the appointee. What is proposed here is that the Prime Minister should pick from the bench of judges his or her preferred candidate. That feels like the use of a judge simply to fulfil a role that, frankly, does not need to be carried out by a judge.

For clarity, I emphasise that I am very much in favour of judges deciding on cases, but I do not see why a judge should fulfil the role of chief quangocrat for the administration of the regime. When we look at the functions the commissioner will have, it is quite right that, under the previous version of the Bill, most of those functions were given to the chief medical officer, because most of the required functions have to do with the administration of the medical aspects of the Bill. The collection of data and the monitoring of the operation of the Act are best left to a medic with experience of our healthcare system, rather than to a judge. These are not judicial functions.

The only function carried out by the commissioner that would require one to be a judge, or that is in a sense judicial, is the review of panel decisions, because a judicial decision is being made. Under new clause 17(2), the test is limited to an error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; those are the grounds for judicial review. If we did not have new clause 17, the ability for judicial review of panel decisions would remain. It could be argued that the new clause would actually limit judicial review by only allowing the person concerned to apply for reconsideration.

I understand that some courts in Canada, which has a comparable judicial and common law system to ours, have held that family members do not have standing to judicially review decisions to authorise medical assistance in dying. The suggestion has been made that families who are concerned that an error has been made in a decision to approve a death should be able to quickly get an injunction through a JR. I hope that that will be the case, if this law passes as proposed, but it certainly is not the experience elsewhere and I fear it might not be the experience here.

I am afraid that we have a dog’s breakfast of a system: all the problems of the High Court system that have been aired, but without any of the benefits. I will finish by quoting Sir James Munby. I know he has been cited regularly, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley said yesterday that, having listened to Sir James, she set herself the task of designing a system that would satisfy a former president of the family division. I am afraid to say that she has not succeeded in her task. I will quote a few points that Sir James made in response to the proposals in these new clauses. He stated:

“The process…is simply not apt to enable the panel to perform its function…The panel is given an extraordinary degree of discretion in relation to the process it is to adopt”.

He suggested that the panel is

“little more than a rubber stamp providing a veneer of judicial approbation”—

I do not think that rubber stamps provide veneers, but his point is well made and I respect it—

“and that is fundamentally unacceptable”.

Finally, he said:

“If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’—if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents—then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed…All in all, in relation to the involvement of the panel in the process, the Bill still falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

Many of us have quoted Sir James Munby, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, but there are a number of other views from ex-judges and very highly-regarded legal professionals that conflict with what Sir James says.

[Danny Kruger]

It would be very helpful if the hon. Lady could—not now; it need not be in the course of these deliberations—publish the evidence of that assertion. Which senior judicial figures have endorsed the new plan? It would be very helpful to hear from them.

We heard many criticisms of the previous regime. In my view, those objections prompted the change of heart that the new clauses derive from. From what I have seen, the weight of evidence indicates that we still have many of the problems that the High Court system had: a lack of effective powers and questions around capacity. We also have a whole new load of problems to do with the essential illegitimacy of a quasi-medical panel of people making an essentially judicial decision without the opportunity to hear in a meaningful way from all the different stakeholders who should be consulted.

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Member for Spen Valley said yesterday that we had to grapple with this confusion, which is that there is a judge not sitting as a judge. It is slightly like a Minister not sitting as a Minister; the Bill has provided all sorts of interesting hybrid creations of people who inhabit split personalities and dual roles.

The hon. Member for Bradford West is, I think, right. From the evidence we have heard from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although there will be a judge, which satisfies the cosmetic need to present this as some sort of continuation of the High Court stage that the House of Commons voted for, they will not sit as a judge. It is rather like having a hobby or a second job. I am not sure judges do that, but it is like chairing a football club on the side. Their status derives from their judicial role, but they are sitting as the commissioner in a lay capacity—I think I have that right.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have already talked about this, and I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned it himself: there is a similar situation with public inquiries, on which a judge sits because of their skillset and who they are, but not necessarily in a traditional judicial capacity.

[Danny Kruger]

It will be interesting to hear from the Minister, who is more equipped than the rest of us to opine on this. My understanding is that a judge sitting as chair of a judicial inquiry might not be sitting in court, but they are there because they are a judge; their function, as the chair of the inquiry, is essentially judicial. That is the only comparison and it is essentially different, because the exercise of a public inquiry is time-limited and specific to a particular case, which is to determine the truth or otherwise of what happened in whatever situation it is being asked to inquire into.

Here, we are setting up a quango—an arm’s length body of Government—that will sit in perpetuity and oversee a bureaucracy of state. That is something that no judge does in our system and, in my view, would be completely inappropriate for a sitting judge to do, even if we could find a sitting judge prepared to fulfil that function, which I think might be challenging.

The other key difference is that a judge chairing a public inquiry is appointed by the Lady Chief Justice; they are essentially judicial in their appointment and work. The judiciary appoints one of its own to fulfil a judicial function as the chair of an inquiry. It is being proposed here that the Government—the Executive, not the judiciary—appoint the chair of the commission from the Bench of judges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I want to speak to amendment (c) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. The amendment requires members of the panel to have undertaken training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control, and financial abuse. It extends the principle of amendments 20, 21, and 22, also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend, which require the medical practitioners involved in the assisted dying process to have undertaken similar training.

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend, the sponsor of the Bill. I am really pleased that she accepted the previous amendments. I do not know whether she will accept this one.

[Kim Leadbeater]

A strong argument has been made to me that the professionals on the panel would have the skills and training to fulfil their role, but it is important, particularly given the time we have spent discussing this issue, that they do have it, so I am happy to support that amendment.

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes to people of ethnic minority backgrounds, coercion, cultural competence and so on. People and organisations have raised concerns about that.

The truth is that the Bill is very gendered: the analysis by women’s organisation The Other Half has found that if the Bill passes, and trends follow those of Australia, 1.65% of all deaths in this country could take place via assisted dying. If so, as many as 1,400 domestic abuse victims could die each year through that process. It is vital that Members on both sides of the debate are conscious that we are opening up a new avenue for domestic abuse through the Bill. That is what the amendment speaks to. To save the Committee time, I will not go over the detail because it was covered during our discussions of the previous three amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

We are discussing how to construe the provision in paragraph 5 of new schedule 2. I should reiterate that, obviously, it is the promoter’s intent to have—hon. Members may call it what they will—the safeguard of unanimity behind that provision. If there is any feeling that the drafting does not fully reflect that intent, it can be tightened up. However, under of the Bill, there is clearly an intent to have unanimity in respect of the final decision about certification.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It absolutely is the policy intent that there should be a unanimous decision of the panel. If there is any lack of clarity, I am very happy to look into working with official draftspeople to tighten that up.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank hon. Members for their interventions.

In respect of the standard that would be applied in order for the panel to be satisfied, in practice, as I was saying, the panel would establish a case on the balance of probability in those circumstances only on the basis of strong evidence. In other words, the more serious the issue to be determined, the closer the scrutiny and the stronger the evidence required.

Introducing a requirement for the panel to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt at this stage would create a difference to, or a divergence from, the standard applied by professionals earlier in the process, such as by the doctors in the first and second assessments, and—I think the hon. Member for Reigate acknowledged this in her speech—to ascertain whether, among other things, the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life, whether they have a clear, settled and informed wish to do so, and that they have not been pressured or coerced. Such a requirement would create the problem of making the application of the Bill incoherent because, of course, if a civil standard has been applied earlier in the process, the higher, criminal bar could never be satisfied at the panel stage. The principal decision is what standard should be applied and, as I have said, the civil standard is used in other end-of-life decisions, but there is also a question of the internal coherence of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is a matter for the impact assessment itself. Clearly both Departments have data on the state of the professions, on how many KCs there are in the country and on how many people will be needed to provide the service. As I say, if Parliament wishes it and legislates for it, the state will work to deliver it, but the detail will come in the impact assessment.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, as I made clear earlier, the effective shift away from the High Court model in clause 12 to the model in the new clauses has been driven by the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I will not get into the precise chronology of when the matter was raised, but it came from my hon. Friend.

Yesterday, I hotfooted it from the Committee to Justice questions, where I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Reigate. We discussed capacity issues in our Crown courts and civil courts. Those issues are well reported in the media, but there is no connection between them and the policy shift here. If this is what Parliament chooses to legislate, the state will work to deliver it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is important to acknowledge that it will be a number of years before this law will be implemented. Hopefully, the Government will continue the fantastic job that they are doing to improve capacity in our courts, so that even if capacity is an issue now, a few years down the line it will not be.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouragement. The Government’s position throughout the entire process, in so far as we have worked with her on these amendments and others to give effect to her intent, is to ensure that they are workable and operable. If this were not workable, we would not be here discussing it.

There are several examples across Government of judges or senior lawyers and KCs sitting on decision-making panels or in organisations or bodies that sit outside the framework of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. We have discussed some examples, such as public inquiries. I say this as the Minister for courts: it speaks to the trust and public confidence in both judges and KCs that when there is a public policy challenge to which many of us as politicians struggle to find a resolution, we so often turn to judge-led and KC-led inquiries to establish either what has happened or how systems can be improved. That is partly because of the impartiality and integrity that they bring to that work. I offer the example of the judicial commissioners who operate on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and who provide independent authorisation of application for the use of the most intrusive investigatory powers.

We have mentioned inquiries; I have also mentioned Parole Board panels as an example of inquisitorial rather than adversarial panels. They are often multidisciplinary, and many of their members are current or retired judges. They sit and hear issues of the most complex nature, assessing the risk that prisoners may present to the public on release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has brought up that case a number of times in various debates on the Bill. In this context, part of the provision—in terms of the design and operation of the commissioner and the panels to which the various cases are referred—is the development of guidance. If the commissioner deems specific processes appropriate to the consideration of applications for assisted death where anorexia is an issue, that guidance can be developed. Again, that is a matter for the promoter of the Bill, but one might have thought that having a dedicated body in relation to assisted death—which also has the monitoring function that we will come to in clause 34—means the development of expertise in dealing with cases, in particular those especially difficult cases of the nature my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West raises. From a Government point of view, that would not necessarily flow—it is hard to see why it would at all—from the High Court, if we revert to that. That is a distinction between the two models that the Bill’s promoter has explored.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is another important argument for having the panel. Where a terminally ill person with an eating disorder has been deemed to have capacity by two doctors and—I surmise, as we now have the compulsory referral—a psychiatrist, we will have on the panel another psychiatrist and a social worker. The panel does help to address concerns about capacity. Does the Minister agree?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has developed her thinking, and the Government have worked with her to reflect that policy intent. I think she is right that the panel is capable of doing just that and it could operate in that way.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 relates to the issue of domestic abuse training. It would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for ensuring that all panel members had received training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Persons appointed to the list of eligible panel members would already be qualified in the field of law, psychiatry or social work, and would have done all the training that pertains to receiving a professional qualification in those fields.

In addition, under new schedule 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the commissioner would be able to give guidance to the panels, which could include training requirements, and the panels must have regard to that guidance in the exercise of their functions. That is all I propose to say about that. It might be seen as an example of something that would typically—I am not saying it has to—be left to regulation or the guidance, rather than being in primary legislation.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 relates to the panel sitting in private or in public. It seeks to ensure that panels sit in private by default.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions pertaining to how the law in this area could change. It is ultimately a matter for the Committee and Parliament as a whole, but I hope those observations have been helpful to Committee members in considering this important clause.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It was a delight to see the mum of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Sadly, I think she is no longer in the Public Gallery, but I hope they had a really good chat.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to report that my mother could not hear a word of the proceedings. I am exaggerating, but she grumbled about the mumbling, which is a lesson for us all.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have all been told off, and quite rightly.

I thank colleagues for another powerful, robust and thorough debate on this important subject. I thank the Minister for providing such an excellent and clear description of the changes to clause 12 that I have proposed this afternoon—I will not repeat that description. The Bill is already the strongest of its kind anywhere in the world. My amendments will make it even more robust. As we have heard, the Bill is much safer than the existing ban on assisted dying, which leaves terminally ill people and their families without any such protections at all.

The proposal to have a multidisciplinary panel, appointed by a judge, to examine each request, following earlier assessments by two independent doctors and, where necessary, a psychiatrist, reflects the expert testimony we have heard during our proceedings. It strengthens the Bill by adding more varied expertise to the decision-making process, with judicial oversight, and it includes an important monitoring and reporting function in the commissioner.

My amendments show the Committee process working exactly as it should, reflecting on evidence from the UK and around the world, and making a strong Bill even stronger. I appreciate that, for procedural reasons, we will not vote on the replacement of clause 12 until the new clauses are put, but I am encouraged that colleagues have offered positive responses and comments to the proposal for a commissioner and a multidisciplinary panel, regardless of how they voted on Second Reading. That tells me that, whatever our views on the Bill, there is a shared commitment to getting protections for terminally ill adults right, which means that we are doing our job.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I was pleased to support my hon. Friend’s amendment on additional training on domestic abuse, coercive control and financial abuse for doctors who take part in the assisted dying process. As members appointed to the panel will already be very well qualified in the fields of law, psychiatry and social work, I am confident that they will have the necessary expertise to determine referrals, but I appreciate the challenges in detecting the subtleties of coercion, as the Committee has discussed at length. As such, I support amendment (c).

Amendment (a) to new schedule 2 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I am fully supportive of her position on ensuring accessibility and equality for Welsh speakers, but in this instance I have some concerns about the barrier her amendment may create for patients in accessing the assisted dying process in a timely manner, and therefore about the workability of the amendment.

Under the Welsh Language Act 1993, as the Minister said, all public bodies operating in Wales must create a Welsh language scheme with the aim of ensuring that Welsh and English are treated equally in all aspects of public service delivery. The Ministry of Justice’s Welsh language scheme, for example, sets out where services can be provided in Welsh, typically through translation services.

I take on board the right hon. Lady’s comments about the limitations of using translators. Given the sensitivity of the conversations and deliberations we are discussing, we need to be sensitive to that. It is, of course, the patient’s prerogative to request a fully Welsh-speaking panel, if that is what they want at such a difficult time—as long as they are made aware of the potential delays this may or may not create. That is my concern.

My reading of amendment (a) is that it is not the right hon. Lady’s intention that this will be required in every case. However, it will ensure a very patient-centred approach, in which I believe passionately. I take on board the Minister’s concerns, which I appreciate may need to be considered further down the line, but I am minded to support amendment (a) to new schedule 2.

Finally, amendment (e) to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), in on audio and video material. I think this comes from a really personal, sensitive and important place, and demonstrates a very patient-centred approach, so I am also minded to support it this afternoon.

I would welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding some of the legal language and terminology around other amendments, and as such, I will not be supporting them this afternoon. We have had another thorough debate, and I welcome the contributions from colleagues across the Committee.

[The Chair]

That concludes the debate on clause stand part. Members will understand that we shall now vote only on clause stand part. The other amendments, new schedules and new clauses will all be voted on as they are reached in the course of the programme.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 469, in clause 13, page 9, line 11, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 472.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 470, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a second declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they have made a first declaration and have not cancelled it;

(ii) a declaration that they understand that they must make a second declaration in order for assistance to be provided under this Act;

(iii) a declaration that they are making the second declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(iv) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the second declaration at any time.

In this subsection ‘specified’ means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a second declaration must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 472, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (6)(a) must provide that a statement under subsection (5) contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following declarations by the coordinating doctor (in addition to a declaration that they are satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d))—

(i) a declaration that they are satisfied that a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of the person;

(ii) a declaration that the second declaration was made after the end of the second period for reflection;

(iii) if the second declaration was made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), a declaration that they have the belief mentioned in subsection (2)(b);

(iv) a declaration that they are satisfied that neither the first declaration nor the second declaration has been cancelled.

In this subsection ‘specified’ means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a statement under subsection (5) must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments serve simply to set out clearly what the regulations must include with regard to the second declaration and the subsequent statement from the co-ordinating doctor. They replace the schedules and are consistent with the advice I have received that matters of this nature are not suitable for the face of the Bill. They are simple and straightforward amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have tabled the amendment to exclude the possibility that somebody could render themselves, if that is the appropriate language, terminally ill by the mechanism of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking.

The Bill before us is based on the principle that assisted suicide should be limited to those who are already dying—those with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less—but there is growing evidence that that safeguard could be undermined by a practice known as voluntary stopping of eating and drinking, or VSED. That is when a person with mental capacity deliberately chooses to stop eating and drinking with the intention of hastening death. VSED is sometimes framed as an exercise of choice at the end of life, but in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, it is increasingly being used as a means to an end—a way for individuals who do not meet the legal definition of terminal illness to qualify for lethal drugs.

The logic is simple: a person has the right to refuse food and water, and if they do so, their health deteriorates and they may die within six months. Some doctors have accepted this as grounds to certify a patient as terminally ill—not because their underlying condition would have led to imminent death, but because of the self-imposed effects of dehydration and malnutrition. The strategy has become viable only because many jurisdictions have shortened or removed waiting periods for assisted suicide. The loophole works only if the time it takes to obtain lethal drugs is shorter than the time it takes to die from refusal of food and water. Under the Bill, the same loophole exists.

Clause 13(2)(b) states that if a doctor

“reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur”

within one month, the standard 14-day waiting period can be reduced to just 48 hours. If a person stops eating and drinking, their death will almost certainly be likely within one month. In other words, a person who is not terminally ill could make themselves eligible for an assisted death within 48 hours simply by refusing sustenance. Proponents of assisted suicide have been explicit: this is not simply a theoretical possibility—it is a co-ordinated strategy.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I might be missing something—it has been a long day—but, presumably, by the time the patient has got to that point, they have been through the eligibility criteria with the two doctors. The hon. Lady said that they would not be terminally ill, but they would have been through all the assessment criteria at this point.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I happened to be at a hospice in Stafford yesterday on a ministerial visit and was extremely impressed by the work that the hospice staff were doing on family counselling, and advice and engagement both with the patient and family and loved ones, so the right hon. Gentleman is right that the hospice sector, among others, plays a vital role in that holistic engagement with patients throughout the process.

Amendment 374 requires that the co-ordinating doctor must notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner where they witness a second declaration and where they make or refuse to make the supporting statement under clause 13(5), and that the commissioner must be provided with a copy of the second declaration and any statement. I hope that those observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms McVey. My amendments 374 and 471 serve to clarify that the second declaration must be made before it is witnessed—it is a drafting amendment—and to bring clause 13 in line with the reporting requirements elsewhere in the Bill. For the functions of the commissioner to be carried out effectively, including supervising the assisted dying panels and making annual reports on the legislation’s operation, it is essential that all relevant details and reports are made available.

I am unable to support amendment 457, in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As I said when we started discussing the amendment, I do not fully understand why it has been positioned at this stage in the process. The shorter period of reflection is a recognition that a person’s death is expected within a month, so they literally have a few weeks left of life.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

That was the hon. Member’s response when I made my speech on the amendment in the previous sitting. I have reflected on that over the weekend. I still think that the issue of the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is a very serious one that ought to be reflected somewhere in the legislation, but she is correct that, at this particular point, we are talking about the second period of reflection already being at an end, so it cannot be hastened in any way by such a measure. Therefore, I will be withdrawing the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I appreciate that; that is helpful and I thank the hon. Member. As the Minister said, a person whose death is approaching may have stopped eating and drinking for a number of reasons. They may simply be too ill. They may be unable to digest food. It may be that they have lost their appetite, or that they will be even more ill if they eat and drink, so it would seem particularly cruel to intervene on that basis at that point, but I appreciate her comments.

Amendment 316 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central seeks to mandate the action a doctor must take if a patient is likely to die within one month. Like other amendments, it goes against the basic principles that underlie the Bill—that the wishes of the person seeking assistance should be respected. Surely that is even more important than ever as they face their final weeks. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, palliative care will have been discussed at length throughout the assisted dying process. It is also worth noting, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, that evidence from other jurisdictions with similar laws—Australia and America—shows that between 80% and 90% of people who have gone through the assisted dying process are already receiving palliative care, so I am not minded to support the amendment.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).

Amendment 470, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a second declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they have made a first declaration and have not cancelled it;

(ii) a declaration that they understand that they must make a second declaration in order for assistance to be provided under this Act;

(iii) a declaration that they are making the second declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(iv) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the second declaration at any time.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a second declaration must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert

“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.

This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.

Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).

Amendment 472, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (6)(a) must provide that a statement under subsection (5) contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following declarations by the coordinating doctor (in addition to a declaration that they are satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d))—

(i) a declaration that they are satisfied that a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of the person;

(ii) a declaration that the second declaration was made after the end of the second period for reflection;

(iii) if the second declaration was made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), a declaration that they have the belief mentioned in subsection (2)(b);

(iv) a declaration that they are satisfied that neither the first declaration nor the second declaration has been cancelled.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a statement under subsection (5) must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—

(a) witnessed a second declaration, or

(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),

the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Cancellation of declarations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Where notice or an indication is given to the coordinating doctor under subsection (1)(a), the doctor must as soon as practicable notify the Commissioner of the cancellation.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.

This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope that these are a couple of nice, simple amendments. The right of the patient to cancel at any time is obviously really important. It is also important that, for the purpose of monitoring and reporting the process, the commissioner, as proposed, is kept informed at every stage. I hope that the whole Committee can see the necessity of these amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill.

The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration? My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am speaking to the group as a whole, which includes clause stand part. I have no objection to the amendments. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the expectation is that the medical professionals involved in the person’s care will have laid out their options clearly. We are to a certain degree trusting in that because amendments to insist on it have been rejected, although I recognise that it will be the clear expectation. He is right that it is hard, as it were, to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, the purpose of my speech at this point is to tease out from the advocates of the Bill what their expectation is. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained his expectation, which is that we are dealing with somebody whose mind is clear, rational, uncluttered by other concerns and entirely free of any undue influences or anxieties about the different choices they might make. Having previously decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they wanted to go through the procedure, they have now decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they want to do the opposite, and we should say, “Fine. We have no further interest in your decision making. It is your choice—you’re on your own.” I am very concerned about the implication of my right hon. Friend’s comments about the sorts of patients who might be involved in the process of assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To allay those fears, perhaps the fundamental answer to the question is that those people do not stop being patients—sadly, they do not stop being terminally ill patients. They have just chosen to cancel the declaration, and they will already have wraparound care. To some degree, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question when he said that doctors have a duty of care. That duty of care does not stop because the person has chosen to take this course of action. They will still be cared for by the professionals looking after them.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, we certainly hope so. Nevertheless, that is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute patient autonomy, which in this circumstance allows a patient to withdraw from the medical treatment, or at least from the support of the medics who had been facilitating their assisted death. They are rightly under no obligation to receive any other sort of care.

Of course, one would assume that in most cases medics will be closely involved in looking after these patients, because they are likely to be very ill. Nevertheless, the Bill has nothing more to say about patients who have just stepped back from the brink of suicide; the medics will have no further obligation to ensure that they will be looked after—except by the GP, as soon as it is practicable for the provider who has just been denied the business of looking after the assisted death to get round to emailing them. If that is seen as sufficient to ensure that those patients will be properly looked after, I beg to differ.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendments 375 and 376. The amendments require that where the co-ordinating doctor, or any registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice, receives a notification or indication from the person seeking assistance under the Bill that the person wishes to cancel their first or second declaration, the doctor or practitioner must inform the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as soon as practicable. Where a registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice has received a notification or indication from the person to cancel their first or second declaration, they must also inform the co-ordinating doctor. I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I repeat what I said earlier about what will happen to the patient if they choose to cancel: their care will continue. From a medical practitioner perspective, it is inconceivable that those patients would be abandoned, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is suggesting. That would not happen.

I understand that cancellation of the second declaration does not need to be included in clause 14(4) because of when in the process it would happen. The first declaration comes much earlier, so clauses 7 to 9 would be applicable; the second declaration comes further down the process, so does not need to be included. However, I am happy to look at that in further detail and come back to the hon. Member on that, if necessary.

Amendment 375 agreed to.

Amendment made: 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Signing by proxy

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 321, in clause 15, page 10, line 33, at end insert—

“(d) the reason why the person was unable to sign their name.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a really sensible point and a fair argument, and I am very happy to support the amendment.

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and I think she sees the point behind it. It was meant not to be awkward—I do not think I have been at all awkward during this process—but simply to state that, if there were concerns later, the reason why the proxy was required should be there in a transparent way. I commend amendment 321 to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I very much support his amendment; it is good to hear that the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will as well. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made his points very powerfully, and it is good that we are in agreement.

I also support amendment 431, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would restrict proxies to donees of lasting power of attorney. The point is that somebody who has been through the process of taking on power of attorney has been properly vetted and approved; they are required to demonstrate their fitness for the role and undertake a meaningful duty of care to the person for whom they are a proxy. That strikes me as an appropriate suggestion from the hon. Lady.

Amendment 411, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, suggests that the phrase

“a person who is of good standing in the community”

should be deleted. I think she is absolutely right to suggest that. I made the point on Second Reading that—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Lady is about to say that her own amendment addresses that point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My point was that I think amendment 411 has been withdrawn.

[Danny Kruger]

Is that the case? I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would not want to pre-empt the regulations, because clearly that is the point of the process. If this Bill gets Royal Assent, we then move on to making regulations, and I have confidence in the good offices of parliamentary counsel, legal advice and the drafting process. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the purpose of those regulations must be to remove ambiguity, not to increase it. I am confident that the system will produce regulations that address his concern.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the Minister agree that it will be on the record that we have had this conversation, and that many of us—including myself—have expressed our concerns about the concept of good standing in the community? I would like to think that that will be taken into consideration.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am acutely conscious that every word we say in this Committee is on the record. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in that context.

The purpose of amendment 253 is to clarify that a person acting as a proxy can both sign and revoke a declaration on behalf of a person seeking assistance under the Bill. This amendment would extend the provisions under clause 15 to a person who is acting as proxy to the person seeking assistance under the Bill, enabling the proxy to act on behalf of the person to cancel their first or second declaration if they are unable to sign their own name by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason. I note that the cancellation of a declaration is governed by clause 14, and the cancellation may be given orally, via writing, or

“in a manner of communication known to be used by the person”.

It does not require the signature of the person seeking assistance under the Bill, so a proxy may not be required for some people in relation to revoking a declaration, even if they have been required under clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak first to my amendment 473. It is important to be clear that the role of the proxy is very specific and would be used only in a very limited number of cases, where the patient is not able to sign their own name. That is, however, important when we are talking about terminally ill people who may be physically impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford alluded to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so soon into her speech. Nevertheless, the clause says that someone can use a proxy when they are unable to sign their name

“by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason”.

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is tantamount to saying that somebody can have a proxy for any reason at all? There is literally no restriction in the clause on the reason for why somebody could have a proxy—anybody could have one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is why amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is really important. We have to put the reason down for why there is a proxy. It depends on personal circumstances and what that patient is going through, so we have to have a bit of flexibility, but they have to be unable to sign their name and they have to explain why they are unable to sign their name.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope that this does not appear pedantic, but we are talking about life and death after all. The patient’s inability to sign their name could be psychological; it is not as if they will have to do a writing test. They simply have to say that they are unable to sign their name, unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there could be some sort of test for that.

I entirely support amendment 321 in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the proxy being obliged to state the reason why—it is good to finally have the question “Why?” being asked in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no obligation for anything to be done about that reason; someone could give a reason that would be regarded as irrelevant. I respect the intention behind the amendment, but it does not clarify the point that literally anybody could effectively get a proxy to sign their name, having said to the assessing doctor, “I want my friend to sign for me.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is the sort of thing that the doctor would explore with the patient. It would happen in a very limited set of circumstances. We have to accommodate people who are physically impaired as a result of their terminal illness, and we have to include that there are a range of circumstances where this might apply. The proxy is being asked not to make any kind of judgment or assessment, but merely to act as an intermediary for the patient if they are unable to sign for themselves. They would have to explain why they are unable to sign for themselves, and the proxy has to be satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration.

I thought long and hard about who should and should not be accepted as a proxy. As always, I try to imagine how it would be seen by someone with a terminal illness. As we know, no two people are the same, nor are their circumstances. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said that surely it should be done by someone the patient knows. The clause defines a proxy as someone the patient has known for two years, which is an important inclusion, but not everyone might have known for two years a person who they are comfortable asking to undertake that role.

I also appreciate the challenges with the wording

“of good standing in the community”.

I will let the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire fight that out among themselves. I am sure we all have our own version of what that means.

I have explored various options and, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, I have spent a huge amount of time on this question, because it is very important. Looking at different lists, there is the list of people who can sign the back of someone’s passport. I do not think that would be appropriate, so I moved away from that. I have also looked at much shorter lists. I do think that this question would be part of a consultation; it is really important to get it right, which is why we must have it as part of a consultation. I am content that having the Secretary of State put it in regulations is the right thing to do.

As I said, I am happy to support amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It is a sensible amendment that makes the reasons for the use of the proxy more transparent. If amendment 253 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) is moved, I am happy to support that too. As the Minister said, a cancellation need not be in writing; it can be made orally or through any other form of communication.

Amendment 321 agreed to.

Amendment made: 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert

“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.

Amendment made: 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”—(Sean Woodcock.)

This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Recording of declarations and statements etc

Amendments made: 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;

(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.

Amendment 377, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person;

(da) a panel has refused to grant such a certificate;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 474, in clause 16, page 11, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section ‘recordable event’ means an event mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (1).”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 475, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert

“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments are designed to streamline the drafting of the Bill. Taken together, they create a new definition of a recordable event, namely those events set out in clause 16(1), where declarations and statements are required at any stage of the process. We can all agree that record keeping is essential, so it is necessary to define the events that should be recorded. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I very much respect the hon. Lady’s intention, and I support the amendments. On clause 16, however, I must take the opportunity to express a certain concern. The clause applies if, under subsection (1)(b), the co-ordinating doctor

“refuses to make…a statement”

to be entered into the person’s medical records. That is good but, as I understand it, a statement could be made that complies with the Bill but does not put on record, in relation to subsection (2), which requirements the co-ordinating doctor did not believe were satisfied. We have missed an opportunity to have more clarity about which exact requirements have not been met. There is also the eternal question about the co-ordinating doctor’s reasons for reaching that conclusion. I just note the missed opportunity to be a little safer with the drafting.

My more general point is about the importance of effective record keeping and declaration. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who throughout the whole Bill process has stressed the importance of good data collection and record keeping, which will be vital so that in later years, if the Bill passes, we can judge whether it is working as intended.

I am concerned about going on the evidence of other countries, which is frequently adduced in support of the Bill, particularly in respect of the absence of evidence of coercion, questions around capacity, proper administration of drugs or the support that patients receive. It is often said that concerns are exaggerated or inappropriate, “because look at what happens in other countries”, but let me briefly run through some evidence from abroad.

The fact is that no other country does adequate record keeping. One ambition of the hon. Member for Spen Valley that I really do share is to have a better system of keeping data than in other countries. In Oregon, the most recent annual report demonstrates a whole series of failures in record keeping. Ingestion status was unknown for 25% of the patients prescribed the drugs, so we do not know whether they took the drugs or what the process was. In 72% of cases, it was unknown whether there were complications; we have been talking about how exaggerated my concerns and those of other Members are about complications, but in 72% of cases in Oregon we do not know. In 30% of cases, it was unknown whether a healthcare provider was present. In 44% of cases, the duration between ingestion and death was unknown.

I very much recognise that the intention of the Bill is not to have those sorts of mistake. Indeed, the intention is to ensure that some of them should be impossible, because a doctor should be present and so on. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in other countries that have inspired the Bill, the data is inadequate. I will give a few more examples.

British Columbia has poor documentation, incomplete assessments, recurrent and excessive delays in reporting. In the debate on the last group of amendments, we spoke about the necessity that a doctor be informed if a declaration is cancelled; I am very concerned that that will not happen quickly and that people could fall through the gaps. That is what happens abroad. We have seen evidence from the former Attorney-General of Victoria, Australia, of all sorts of irregularities, with doctors falsely certifying that patients had signed statements and so on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not know the details of the individual cases that the hon. Member speaks about, but he makes a powerful point and we absolutely agree on the importance of recording and monitoring. I know that he voted against the changes at clause 12, but I hope he gets some reassurance from the changes that the commission would bring in. Having the commission and the panels would ensure robust monitoring and reporting. I hope he agrees that that is a positive step.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady has every intention of insisting that the system works well, that doctors do their job and that good record keeping happens. My concern throughout has been that we have not been robust enough in ensuring that all of that happens.

A huge amount of faith is being placed in the good professional conduct of doctors. Patient autonomy has been stressed, but it often translates into doctor autonomy. We are relying enormously on doctors doing their job well, and we are giving them significant latitude to do their job properly. As we see in other jurisdictions, particularly when assisted suicide becomes normalised and services are established explicitly to provide assisted suicide, we get into a dangerous area in which adequate documentation and reporting might not happen.

I will conclude with evidence from Canada, which is a very comparable country; it has a slightly different mechanism for delivering assisted suicide, but its legal framework is very similar to ours. The Health and Social Care Committee in our last Parliament received evidence from an academic in Canada, Dr Kotalik, who stated that federal regulations had been

“mandating a collection of data from MAID providers”,

just as the Bill will do. However, he noted that

“those legal and regulatory efforts have yet to produce evidence that the program operates as intended. We have no publicly accessible evidence that the eligibility criteria and safeguards prescribed by law were respected and that the Criminal Code has not been transgressed.”

It is fine for us, in this Committee and in Parliament, to specify that all doctors should do their job properly and that all data should be appropriately collected, transmitted and recorded. Nevertheless, as we all know from our casework, the reality is often one of bureaucratic mistakes being made, albeit not with any ill will. Given the volumes that we may well be dealing with, I think it is appropriate to raise significant concerns about the operation of the Bill and the data collection that we seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The purpose of amendments 474 to 478 is to improve the drafting of the Bill by creating a new definition of “recordable event”. Recordable events are the events set out in clause 16(1) related to the recording of declarations and statements.

The amendments would also make consequential changes to clause 16, which refer to the occurrence of the recordable event, as per the new definition, and include reference to a report in addition to a statement or declaration. The reference to a report is consequential on the amendments already agreed by the Committee to clauses 7 and 8.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 474 agreed to.

Amendments made: 475, clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert

“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Recording of cancellations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 479, in clause 17, page 11, line 37, leave out “at” and insert “with”.

This amendment clarifies that a cancellation may be given to a practitioner with the person’s GP practice.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendment, which would clarify the drafting, speaks for itself. The important point is that the record of cancellation be with the GP practice as soon as is practicable. It is not necessary for that to take place physically at the practice, as that could potentially delay its delivery.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 17(2) provides that where a notice or indication regarding a cancellation of a first or second declaration is given to a registered medical practitioner “at” the person’s GP practice, that practitioner must record the cancellation in the person’s medical records as soon as possible. Amendment 479 seeks to clarify that the requirement to record the cancellation applies not just where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner physically at the GP practice, but where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner “with” the person’s GP practice, irrespective of whether the notice was given at the GP practice. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 479 agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Provision of assistance

Amendment made: 378, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for the respectful way in which he is doing so. He has given an example of a very personal story; it is also important to remember the other personal stories we have all heard. We have with us today in the Public Gallery family members who have lost loved ones. Catie’s mum went to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, and her daughter could not go with her. As a family they have suffered to this day as a result of that experience.

We need to be really careful about the language we use around suicide. We have spoken about this before. The cases we have heard of are not people who want to die. They are people who want to live, but they are terminally ill. We need to be really sensitive to that, having heard so many examples of families who have been through these really difficult situations. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am minded to support his amendment because I think it comes from a good place.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hear what she has said; we have had this conversation before. I am afraid that I do insist on my right to use the English language accurately. What is proposed in the Bill is a carve-out of the Suicide Act, so I regret to say to the hon. Lady that I will continue to describe it in terms that are appropriate to it. I hope I do so with absolute sympathy and respect for the many families who have suffered from the trauma of seeing their loved ones die badly—loved ones who would have wished for an assisted death under the terms of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady supports my amendment. I do not think it would be any sort of imposition on families for the doctors to let the patient know at the last moment that they have the opportunity to turn back.

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. We have to think about the no doubt quite turbulent emotions that people will have as they approach the end of their life, and to reiterate their genuine autonomy. They are not on a conveyor belt that they cannot get off until the very last moment—until they have passed through this gateway. The amendment seeks to remind them and, indeed, their families of that. I am afraid we do hear terrible stories of people who have arranged their assisted death: often family members have flown in from abroad, doctors have been summoned and so on, and then they feel they have to proceed because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they feel a burden as it is and do not want to be an annoyance at the end by making everybody wait. I am afraid that is indeed the reason for the amendment. I am pleased to hear that it sounds like it will be accepted, and I am grateful to Members who will support it.

Amendment 463 is the other, more substantial, amendment in my name in this group. It would leave out paragraph (c) of clause 18(6), which says that the doctor can assist the patient

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Here we are in a lot of difficulty and a grey area. Let me try to unpack the reasons for objecting to paragraph (c). The hon. Member for Spen Valley argued in an interview that there is a “very clear line” between the Bill and euthanasia, which is someone else doing the deed. She said that the act

“has to be the decision of the individual, and it has to be the act of the individual”,

which

“creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

I agree with her—it is right that we introduce the additional safeguard of insisting that the patient performs the final act themselves.

I recognise that there is a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and I support the hon. Lady’s attempt to insist on that distinction in the law. It is another safeguard. But the fact is that there is a blurred line between the two, and I can also understand why many people object to the exclusion of euthanasia—of the fatal act being administered by other people. A doctor from Canada said it was inherently ableist to require the patient to self-administer, and I think that is unarguable. If that is the case, the logical provision would be to enable euthanasia, if one believes in the autonomy of the patient.

I am afraid my strong belief is that the reason why euthanasia has not been proposed in the Bill or by the campaign, which has been led by an organisation that used to call itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is because the campaign has concluded that such a Bill would not pass Parliament and believes—I think correctly—that Members of Parliament and members of the public would object to euthanasia. But the logic of the Bill and of the campaign is actually for euthanasia, if one believes genuinely in autonomy, in equal rights and in not discriminating against people who are physically unable to perform the act themselves.

Despite my efforts, hon. Members have not been able to conceptualise the difference between withdrawing a medical treatment that affects a particular medical condition on the one hand, and administering drugs that annihilate the person on the other. There is a meaningful and important difference between those two things. One is a person declining to use a shield, and the other is the person using a sword against themselves. I think there is a difference there, and I regret that colleagues do not see it.

Where I do not see a difference, however, is between a person injecting themselves and asking someone else to inject them. There are two versions of the death of Saul in the Bible. I think this is the only reference to the Bible that I will make in this whole debate, and I make it partly to show that there is an inconsistency in the Bible—there is not a single Biblical view of these matters. In one account of the death of Saul, having been defeated by the Philistines, he asks his servant to run him through with his sword, but his servant refuses, so he falls on his own sword and kills himself. In the other version, he gets a passing soldier to run him through—to kill him.

To me it does not matter: the inconsistency in the story is interesting historically, but conceptually, logically and morally I do not see the difference. Whether you fall on your own sword or ask someone else to do it to you, it is still a sword, you are still actioning it and you are still responsible, if we recognise that the individual has autonomy. But there is a practical difference. We are talking about assistance to die and the role of another person who supports your decision and helps you to fulfil it, but that results in an obscuring of the practical difference. In practice, as we see in clause 18(6), the assistant comes very close to euthanasia. The role of the assistant, in my view, is closer to that of the soldier who kills Saul than of the servant who refused to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is making an interesting philosophical point with his biblical references. I think the point he may be making is that there might not be any difference for the individual, as the result is sadly the same, but I put it to him that there is quite a significant difference for the other person. If we think about the autonomy of the medical professionals we ask to be involved in the process, there is a strong argument that it would be very different for them to be more involved in the process. Does that makes sense?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.

I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.

When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I certainly have not heard anyone try to diminish the experience of suicidal people. We probably all have our own stories of loved ones who we have either lost to suicide—I know that I do—or who had very severe mental health issues. The point I would make is that the families I have met who have lost loved ones through assisted dying or a harrowing terminal-illness death have said that they desperately wanted to live. That is the distinction I would make, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies and ideation also want to live—they just do not feel they have a choice. It is a very delicate debate to have, but please be assured of my sensitivities to it.

[Naz Shah]

I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because I do not want the Committee—or our constituents—to feel that there is an equivalence. There is not. People who are in that space, who ring the Samaritans helpline to speak to them, all desperately want to live a brilliant life. That is what brings us here: each and every one of us wants to make this place the best it can be, so that our country is the best it can be and all our communities, people and constituents—all members of society—thrive. It is a sensitive debate, but let us be careful not to draw a parallel where there is not one. It was important for me to put that on the record.

I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire because we have already voted down an amendment requiring doctors to simply ask the question why. This speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised: I know, through my experience at the Samaritans, as somebody who has attempted suicide and as somebody who has gone on to chair a charity that leads mental health interventions, how difficult it is for a patient has gone through the process of having had that conversation with their family, who might not necessarily agree, and having convinced them that they are going to take this option because they want autonomy, and fear losing it.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people, at that moment, saying their final goodbyes, and the level of potential pressure they face right at the last minute, having spoken to everybody and put their family members, and indeed themselves, through the process. Would they not feel internal pressure on themselves to go through with it? Would they really have the option, and not feel, in a sense, obliged to say, “Yes”? Do we really not want to ask that question?

When we debated the amendment requiring doctors to ask the question why, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that doctors would ask it anyway, but that argument would not work in this instance because doctors would not do this anyway. They would not say, “I am about to give you something—have you changed your mind?”, because by that point they are in a process. The drug, in whatever form it takes, is in the process of being, or will have been, handed over to the person who wants to take that option, so it is not the same. I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The challenge is that the way in which the amendment is drafted could well lead to unintended consequences, because the scope is not clear. If we are not clear what the scope is, it could potentially be exponential.

New clause 23 would prevent regulated care homes and hospices from facing any detrimental consequences for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with the Bill. This also means that their funding must not be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance to take place on their premises. As a result, a person who is terminally ill and is residing in a care home or hospice could be asked or required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill, if that care home or hospice provider does not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises.

In such circumstances, the care home or hospice provider would not be able to be placed in any detriment as a result of any action or decision taken. This could engage a person’s right under article 8 of the ECHR. Further, public authorities would not be able to persuade care homes or hospices to provide or permit assistance to take place on their premises by offering additional funding if they agreed to do so. Equally, if a public authority gave funding to care homes or hospice providers in recognition of their agreement to provide or permit assisted dying on their premises, and that provider later decided not to provide or permit the assistance, and spent the funding on other matters, the public authority would not be able to recover the funding if it were given unconditionally.

Clause 23 sets out that no registered medical practitioner or other health professional would be under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. It also sets out that employees cannot be subject to any detriment by their employer for exercising their right to either participate or not participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further amendment to the clause will be required on Report to ensure that the opt-out in clause 23(1) and the employment protections in clause 23(2) work effectively alongside the duties imposed on health professionals in other provisions of the Bill as amended in Committee.

I hope those observations were helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Ms McVey.

Clause 23 provides that there will be no obligation on medical practitioners and health professionals to provide assistance as set out in the assisted dying process. We know doctors and other health professionals hold a variety of views on assisted dying. A significant number are in support of what this Bill sets out to do, and the experience from other jurisdictions is that that number increases once it is seen to be working safely and effectively in practice. Others, of course, would object to being involved at any stage and I am very respectful of that. The Bill is about giving terminally ill people choice and autonomy, but it is absolutely right that the principle of autonomy is extended to registered medical practitioners, health professionals and others.

As such, I turn to amendment 480. I agree with the intention behind the amendment—nobody should have a duty to be involved with the provision of assistance in accordance with the legislation—and I think there is consensus across the Committee on that.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of the amendment, the lack of clarity around being directly or indirectly in the provision of assistance, and the framing of the selective list of activities. I fear that the amendment could have unintended consequences and an impact on continuity of care, and I take on board the Minister’s comments about the significant legal uncertainty that that would create. I therefore cannot support the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to consider an alternative amendment that would better achieve the aim of ensuring that no one has an obligation to take part in the assisted dying process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Obviously, the sentiment that we should work with hospices and let them set their own policy is absolutely right—that is the purpose of the amendment—but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Minister just said that if any hospice attempts to prevent assisted dying from taking place on their premises, there will be human rights claims? They can have all the consultations and conversations they want, but unless the Bill specifies that they are allowed to opt out, they will be forced to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am aware of the Minister’s comments. This will be part of the discussion as we take it forward. That is why this debate is really powerful.

In their written evidence, the trustees at Willow Burn hospice, based in the UK, told us:

“Our Mission is to deliver hospice care of the highest standard to our patients and those important to them...We also believe that we should support and enable people to make the choices that matter to them.”

They said they had not decided their position on assisted dying and remained

“open minded about possible future actions. We believe this stance is in the best interests of patients and their families and reflects the wishes of our community.”

I welcome that open-minded approach and their commitment

“to put care, compassion and dignity at the heart of everything”

they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member East Wiltshire has said, the picture is not black and white. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in that regard.

Colleagues may remember the evidence given to the Committee by the CEO of Hospice UK, Toby Porter. He clarified for us that institutions do not function in the same way as individuals when it comes to conscience-influencing decisions. He told us:

“There is this idea that your individual opinion guides everything, but with a hospice charity the opposite is true. As many Members will know because of their own work as trustees, the trustees and leadership of a hospice team are required to put personal opinion and interest to one side and always act in the best interest of the charity’s beneficiaries, who are the population.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 195, Q255.]

It is also important to remember that international experience shows that up to 30% to 40% of patients who sign up to the assisted dying process ultimately do not access it. Palliative care may meet their needs, or they may simply change their mind. However, we also know that the reassurance and comfort that the choice of an assisted death provides alongside other treatment and care is really important to them, and I do not believe that reassurance should be denied to some people because of the institution they happen to be in.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is outlining the issues very effectively. No one, of course, is saying that anybody who works at the hospice that may object has to participate. It may say, “No one here will assist.” We have talked about the importance of place. To a certain extent, I have a right as a tenant in a place where I am resident. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is proposing actively to prevent someone from being able to access this in a place that they choose. That feels to me the wrong balance. I wonder whether that is broadly where she is heading.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The word that we have used a lot—maybe not enough in some respects—is choice. That is important for individuals, but it is important for institutions as well. Putting an institutional opt-out in the Bill would risk creating confusion and distress for patients and their loved ones, and indeed for staff and volunteers.

[Rebecca Paul]

Does the hon. Lady have any concerns about what this position would mean for the end of life workforce? I know we are here to make law, but we cannot ignore the practical consequences for end of life care. If we do not have this carve-out, we could lose a lot of wonderful and great people who work in end of life care and who feel that they are not able to participate, if the hospice cannot specify.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed.

Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.

[Naz Shah]

Pharmacies have not been mentioned. Would they have the ability to opt out?

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that.

Mr Porter also said:

“hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.]

The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today. The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.

[Danny Kruger]

I, too, am very grateful to you for rescuing us, Ms McVey; thank you. I also thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley: it is nice to be commended for our good conduct, so I am grateful for that. This has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. I appreciate the fact that we have made some progress in understanding each other and potentially improving the Bill, although I regret the lack of support from the Government Front Bench for the amendments that I have tabled.

Let me just refresh memories on the purpose of my amendments. The Bill promoter has tabled amendments to clauses 24 and 25, which we will come to and which keep the phrase

“providing assistance to a person in accordance with this Act”,

but add to it these two other phrases:

“performing any other function under that Act”

and

“assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act”.

Those amendments expand the protection from criminal and civil liability. They mean that performing any other function under the Act and assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Act, are both protected from criminal and civil liability. But the hon. Lady has not tabled a similar amendment to clause 23, and there is a real risk. The British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Royal College of Nursing, as I mentioned yesterday, have all warned that the protection of conscience clause is limited solely to the final act, rather than applying to all functions under the Act. I appreciate that the hon. Lady expresses a commitment to trying to ensure that we do cover everybody and all appropriate actions and activities that take place, but I suggest that that is what my amendment would do.

In response to the objections to the amendment, I appreciate the sudden interest in precision in drafting.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not sudden!

[Danny Kruger]

Well, every time that those on my side of the debate raise detailed, particular points we are told, “Oh, the spirit of the text is clear. We’ll sort that out later. It’ll come in guidance.” We are told that we should not be nitpicking, embroidering and so on. Anyway, I appreciate the attention to detail, and I want to respond to some of the points.

With respect, the Minister made a pretty tendentious suggestion that a doctor could opt in to assisted dying and take part in some of the procedures but then suddenly decide to neglect performing others, and that that would not be negligent. I cannot conceive of any court or tribunal conceding that it would not be negligent not to fulfil the obligations under the Act once the procedure has begun—once the doctor has made commitments and already undertaken activities to progress an assisted dying case.

The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire objected on the grounds that the amendment might give a gardener or cleaner the right to opt out. Proposed new subsection (1B)(b) of clause 23 actually makes it clear that “ancillary” activities are not protected by the conscience clause, so the gardener would not be off the hook—under the amendment, the gardener would still have to mow the lawn.

I recognise that the drafting might not be perfect, but I emphasise that the PBL “Guide to Making Legislation”—by the secretariat to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee—makes it clear that Government should not object to Back-Bench amendments on drafting grounds. If there are issues with particular phrasing that cause the Government or the promoter concern, that can be addressed subsequently, so I regret it if the Minister is using drafting issues to justify a refusal to support these amendments.

On new clause 22 and the issue of premises, which we have discussed very interestingly, a couple of objections have been raised. The first relates to shared ownership schemes, which we are all familiar with, particularly for elderly people. The answer is simple. The corporate owner under a shared ownership scheme is not in occupation. Being in occupation has a particular meaning in land law, and it is not the case here that a tenant genuinely in occupation of their own premises could somehow be denied their right to have an assisted death in their own home because of the freehold arrangement of the premises they occupy.

I am grateful for the indication given by Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, that there may well be circumstances in which it is appropriate for particular premises to opt out of the obligation to facilitate assisted dying, so that a particular institution would have the right to deny permission for assisted death.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 24, page 15, line 11, leave out from second “of” to end of line 12 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.”.

This amendment provides that it is not an offence to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause stand part.

I remind Committee members that we expect four or five votes at about 2.50 pm. In that case, we will suspend for an hour, similarly to last night, and come back at 3.50 pm, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments relate to criminal liability under the Bill. They get to the heart of why the legislation is needed. Amendment 504 seeks to clarify the language of clause 24 and provide reassurance that it will not be considered an offence to perform a function under the provisions of the Bill or to assist a person seeking to end their own life in connection with anything done under the Bill. It will ensure that those acting within the law, and with compassion, to assist terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering and take control at the end of their life are protected under the law.

Amendment 505 ensures that the provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 will supersede the Suicide Act 1961, providing clarity that actions taken under the new Act will not be subject to the outdated legal framework established under the 1961 Act. That is a crucial step in modernising our laws to reflect the values of compassion, dignity and personal autonomy. These amendments bring us closer to a legal framework that is clear and safe.

Our Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the former Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in relation to assisted dying, “The law must reflect the changing moral landscape of society, and in cases such as this, where the individual’s autonomy and suffering are at stake, our legal framework must offer clarity and compassion.” During his tenure as DPP, Sir Keir also emphasised the importance of not criminalising individuals who act out of compassion, particularly in difficult and morally complex situations. He said, “The law must be clear, and it must ensure that those who act with the intention to relieve suffering are not penalised, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law.” That sentiment is echoed in the amendments before us today, which ensure that those who assist individuals under the Bill are protected by law, offering clarity and reassurance to both the public and professionals who may be involved in such decisions.

Sir Max Hill, another former Director of Public Prosecutions, remarked in 2019, “The law around assisted dying is often unclear and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both individuals and healthcare professionals. What we need is a system that balances compassion with protection, ensuring that people who are at their most vulnerable are supported in a way that is both legal and ethical.” Sir Max Hill’s words emphasise the need for clear, compassionate guidance, which these amendments will provide. They will help to eliminate the legal uncertainty that can cause fear and hesitation in those who act in the best interests of individuals facing terminal illness.

The 2010 DPP policy clarified that assisting someone to end their life was not automatically criminal and that each case would be assessed on its individual facts. However, that has not changed the law and many people are still being failed by the law as it stands. These amendments create clarity and prevent ambiguity around what constitutes a criminal act versus an action legally protected by the new law.

I will finish with a very powerful testimony from Louise Shackleton from Scarborough. Louise accompanied her husband to Dignitas last December. I believe she was the first person to make that trip since Second Reading. Louise talks about the trip she made to Switzerland with her husband. She says:

“This is not an easy process as some against Assisted Dying might have you believe, might try and convince you. It is a robust and thorough almost an ordeal in itself. Then there is the cost, not just financially but mentally and physically as he had to be able to get to Zurich and someone had to assist him to do this…My husband did not deserve this to be his end nor did I deserve this to be his end, my last memory of him…I accompanied my husband to Switzerland, where we had 4 wonderful days together, my husband’s mood had lifted, he was at peace, it was as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders. He was not scared, no anxiety, his emotional suffering had ceased. You cannot imagine unless you see and feel this he was looking forward to his peaceful death, looking forward to leaving his pain, suffering…At the end, my husband was able to die on his own terms, pain-free and peaceful, held in my arms as his heart gently slowed and finally stopped, granting him the dignified and serene farewell that he had wished for. But where was I? alone in a strange country alone, scared, bereft, organising an Uber to take me away from the…Dignitas House, I was vulnerable and in utter shock, now having to leave my dead husband alone, leave his body to be cared for by people I had never met…Due to our draconian laws my husband had to be in a foreign country, had to be cremated to be brought back home. No funeral that he would have chosen, no mourners, no ceremony, cremated with no Reverend to pray for him, returned to me in a cardboard box. The pain is excruciating beyond any other loss I have experienced”.

She then says:

“I have been arrested and spent just under three hours being interviewed by two CID officers. Four days after my husband left my world there I was stuck in a Police station being cautioned, questioned, having to relive my trauma, for my crime, a crime made by love, a crime made by adoration, a crime of compassion and respect of my husband’s last wish.”

She now faces a prolonged police investigation. She tells us,

“My husband was the first British person to go to Dignitas after parliament debated on Friday 29^th Of November 2024. You have the power, the power is yours to be human, to follow Gods wish, to ‘suffer’ choices that other people may make even if its uncomfortable for you. Palliative care I hear you say, My Husband did not want palliative care…Please give others the gift of dignity and a good death in their homes…You have the power to do something amazing, give people the choice.”

I commend these amendments, which will help many people. Sadly, it is too late for Louise, but they will help many other families who will potentially go through what she has been through.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly on clause stand part. As I noted a few weeks back—it feels a long time ago—when we debated amendment 82, the clause leaves the law in a strange position. I hope that we will now have the opportunity to explore that and make sure that we are comfortable with the position and have identified whether any changes are needed.

Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 criminalises both assisting and encouraging suicide:

“A person (‘D’) commits an offence if—

(a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and

(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

It is a single offence, but can be committed in two ways: either through assistance or through encouragement.

Clause 24(3), both as drafted and as amended by amendment 505, would make an exception from criminal liability under the Suicide Act, but in respect only of assistance, not of encouragement. It would cover:

“(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”

In other words, it is strictly limited to assisting suicide. It only covers the actions in the Bill around conducting the preliminary discussion, assessing the applicant, giving the applicant the approved substance and so on. What happens to the other half of section 2 of the Suicide Act: the offence of encouraging suicide? I will not rehash the debates that we had over amendment 82, but I must point out that as that amendment was rejected, the law does not dovetail. Encouragement would still be very much an offence under the Suicide Act, as it has not been excepted under the Bill.

Because my amendment was not agreed to, we will have the absurd situation in which somebody can commit the crime of actively encouraging someone to take their own life, yet that will not be looked for or taken into account when assessing someone’s eligibility for an assisted death. On the flipside, there is a very real risk for families and friends of loved ones who could inadvertently overstep the mark and move from support of a loved one to encouragement. It does not take much imagination to realise that that could lead to accusations and potentially even to prosecution if the law is not sorted and clarified at this stage.

We already know how difficult it has been for family members who want to accompany loved ones to Dignitas but fear that they could face prosecution; the hon. Member for Spen Valley has made that point so eloquently. No one wants that, so it is important that we ensure that the Bill does not create a similar situation in which someone could be unfairly prosecuted for encouragement, which is still very much a crime under the Suicide Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I appreciate that, Mr Dowd, which is why I was elaborating—I wanted to make sure that everyone understood the nature of the question without having seen the letter. In order to summarise, following your instruction, I refer to the letter.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 504 agreed to.

Amendment made: 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Civil liability for providing assistance

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 501, in clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The doing of any of the following does not, of itself, give rise to any civil liability—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act;

(b) performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act;

(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to an act done dishonestly, or in some other way done otherwise than in good faith, or

(b) to any liability in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person.”.

This amendment ensures that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill, and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. It also excepts, from the exclusion from civil liability, things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising out of negligence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, Clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for amendment 502.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments ensure that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. Importantly, they also rightly exempt from the exclusion from civil liability things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising from negligence.

Proposed new subsection (1) in amendment 501 makes it clear that anyone providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Bill will not face civil liability simply for doing so. That is crucial in offering clarity and confidence for healthcare professionals, family members or others who might otherwise hesitate due to fear of being sued for assisting a loved one or patient who wishes to end their life as a result of their terminal illness.

However, although we are providing protection, amendment 501 does not allow for unfettered actions without any accountability. Proposed new subsection (1A) ensures that any actions that are dishonest or done in bad faith are not protected from civil liability. Additionally, it states that breaches of a duty of care, such as negligence, are also not exempt from liability. This provision is a critical safeguard. It ensures that, although we provide legal protection for those acting with compassion and integrity, we also prevent exploitation or irresponsible actions, by making it clear that there is no immunity for actions that are dishonest or negligent. That strikes the right balance between compassionate assistance and legal accountability.

The amendment particularly reassures doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers—those who are most likely to be involved in the process. Often, they are deeply committed to palliative care and to supporting patients through their end of life journey, and the amendment ensures that they will not face legal risk if they provide assistance to eligible individuals under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to clause 25 as a whole. First, though, I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, because I recognise that she is attempting to fix a problem with the Bill.

However, I am afraid that my objection remains: the fact is that no other assisted suicide law in the world—including in common law jurisdictions similar to our own, such as Australia or New Zealand—has such a clause. There can be no justification for it. If, in the course of providing assistance under this Bill, a doctor commits a civil wrong, they ought to be liable for it in the usual way.

I am glad the hon. Lady has realised that a total exclusion of civil liability is not justifiable, but her change does not go far enough. Her amendments would preserve civil liability where an act was done dishonestly—not in good faith—or for liability in tort, based on the breach of a duty of care, or in other words the tort of negligence. However, it is worth noting that that still excludes civil liability in other respects, and we should ask whether that is justifiable.

First, the clause would still exclude civil liability under a contract, so a patient who has received improper care in breach of contract would not fall within either of the exceptions of proposed new subsection (1A). I take the point that, in the case of negligent care, there would often be a concurrent liability under the tort of negligence, and that that is preserved by new subsection (1A)(b), but that is not the case for other forms of contractual arrangements.

That might be particularly relevant in the situation of subcontracting. An example would be where an outsourcing company is tasked with transporting the lethal substance. Given the risks involved, the contract specifies strict rules that must be complied with, but the company does not comply with those rules. Under clause 25, even as amended, my concern is that they could not be sued for that breach of contract. What is the justification for excluding civil liability in contracts?

Secondly, there is the tort of trespass to the person, which is commonly relevant to medical practice, as it is under such torts that cases where there was no consent or capacity are handled. Those torts can be committed recklessly, but recklessness is not the same as bad faith or dishonesty, so liability could not be established under new subsection (1A)(a). Such torts are also different from negligence—they do not involve a duty of care—so they would not be covered by new subsection (1A)(b). I appreciate that, in many cases, liability could also be established under the tort of negligence, but that would not be the case in all cases. So I ask again: what is the justification for this exclusion?

Finally, and most concerning, we were told in previous debates that if it turned out that the criteria for an assisted death were not met, one could always apply for an injunction. Leaving aside the practical and financial obstacles involved in seeking an injunction at the last minute, which we have discussed before, my concern is that a private law injunction requires that a civil wrong either has been committed or is about to be committed. However, in a case where the doctors consider, in good faith and without negligence, that the criteria have been met, but the family has new evidence to show that that is not the case, the effect of clause 25, even as amended, would be that no civil wrong has been, or would be, committed in that instance, so the test for a private law injunction would not be met.

I might be wrong, so I would be interested to hear whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley disagree with that analysis. I would be grateful if they could point out how the private law test for an interim injunction is met in such an instance.

All this could be much simpler if clause 25 were left out of the Bill entirely. Australia and New Zealand do not have such a clause or a civil liability exemption for practitioners of assisted suicide, and I am not aware of that having caused problems for practitioners, so I would be interested to understand why we need such a measure here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Well done for arriving on time, by the way.

These amendments aim to ensure that, if passed, this legislation will be legally and operationally workable. I will offer a technical, factual explanation and rationale for them. Amendments 501, 502 and 503 replace clause 25(1) and instead provide that the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill will, of itself, not give rise to civil liabilities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are where an individual provides assistance in accordance with the Bill, where an individual performs any other function under the Bill in accordance with the Bill, and where an individual assists a person seeking to end their life under the Bill, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1A) would create an exception to the exclusion of civil liabilities, providing that civil liabilities can arise in cases when an act is performed dishonestly or otherwise than in good faith, as well as in cases of negligence. Without this amendment, there is the possibility that clause 25(1) could provide blanket immunity to a person from all civil liabilities, even when they may have been negligent in their actions in providing assistance in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly on this issue. An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the protections that clause 25 and these amendments provide for medical practitioners. I think the clause strikes the right balance, but it is important to remove the blanket immunity. My hon. Friend referred to codes of practice and codes of conduct. We have talked a lot about good medical practice from the General Medical Council, and we have a clause in the Bill on codes of practice. I feel confident in the clause, but I am still having regular meetings with officials about the legal implications of the Bill. I will continue those conversations, but I am happy that the clause as it stands serves the correct purpose.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Lady respond to the point about injunctions? The Minister might want to respond to this as well. My understanding is that in order to obtain an injunction, someone does not have to establish that there is either a civil wrong or a criminal offence. They have to establish that there is a serious matter to be adjudicated, and that there is a strong likelihood of harm taking place. In those circumstances, a court would consider granting an interim injunction, subject then to a further hearing, ex parte or otherwise. The idea that some kind of civil tort needs to be established is not actually correct in seeking an injunction.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.

[Jake Richards]

My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Unless the Minister has anything to add on injunctions—

[The Chair]

Order. Can the Committee address all remarks to me, please? I have said this time after time. This is not a dialogue or a chit-chat across the room.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair.

[Sarah Sackman]

I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair, and apologies. I thank the Minister for the intervention and I think she did make the point that needed to be made.

[The Chair]

I hope my remarks were of some help. I might repeat them again in due course.

Amendment 501 agreed to.

Amendments made: 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, in clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for amendment 502.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Dishonesty, coercion or pressure

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 506, in clause 26, page 16, line 7, leave out “in accordance with” and insert “under”.

This amendment provides that the offence under subsection (2) applies in relation to an approved substance provided under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).

Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”

This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).

Amendment 509, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments to clause 26—and clause 27 to some degree, which I will come on to shortly—are intended to clarify offences under the law. The changes refine the language to ensure that offences relating to dishonesty, coercion and pressure are more clearly defined. The amendments serve to clarify the details of four categories of offences, and I will provide a summary of the four categories.

The first category is when someone

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”.

This offence, in clause 26(2), is the most serious offence. It is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life; it includes coercive control and pressure, and it attracts as the maximum a life sentence—the most severe punishment that the law can impose.

The second category of offences includes

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure,”

inducing

“another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration.”

This is in clause 26(1). It is where the criminal conduct has coerced or pressured someone to execute or not cancel the declarations—a step in the process, but not actually ending their own life. It is the second most serious offence, and attracts a maximum of 14 years in prison.

The third category of offences involves making or using a false instrument—first declaration, second declaration, medical report or within-six-months-or-less diagnosis—or failing to notify the cancellation of a relevant declaration, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance under the Act. That actually comes under new clause 24, which will be discussed in relation to clause 27, but I think it is important to look at the offences in the round. This is the third type of offence. It is a new offence, and it covers cases where a person helps another person to obtain assistance under the Act by falsifying documents to get that assistance or to prevent it from being removed. This is still very serious, and attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. It will most often be applied where the person seeking the assistance wishes to get round the safeguards. The safeguards must be rigorously enforced, hence the same maximum as for the second category of offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I will be fairly brief. I welcome amendment 508, which would ensure that conviction for the offence leads to a necessarily serious result. However, it is not just the strength of the sentence that we need to think about; there is also a question about how difficult it can be to detect and demonstrate coercion in the first place.

Domestic abuse prosecutions have followed an overall downward trend over the past decade, according to Women’s Aid. A report from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in January found the criminal justice system unfit to hold abusers to account and safeguard domestic abuse victims. Domestic abuse victims are being failed by the criminal justice system at every stage, from police to probation. Victims seeking safety in justice routinely face a lack of specialist service referrals, poor enforcement of protective orders, court delays and early release of abusers. The commissioner also found that just 5% of police-recorded domestic abuse offences reached conviction and that less than a fifth of victims have the confidence to report to the police in the first place. Within the police workforce itself, only 4% of alleged domestic abuse perpetrators are dismissed.

Women’s Aid says that trust in the criminal justice system is at an all-time low, with domestic abuse survivors not feeling that they will be believed and supported when reporting abuse. That is even more challenging for black and minoritised survivors, who face additional barriers and poor responses when they seek help.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making a point that we have already covered several times in the debate. It is an important point, but I hope that she is reassured by the offences to be included in the Bill, which create sentences that do not currently exist.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am absolutely reassured by the hon. Lady’s amendment, and I welcome it, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the sentence is important but identifying coercion and pressure can be difficult too.

In written evidence, a social worker called Rose has cast doubt on the workability of the Bill. She was writing when the High Court safeguard was still part of the Bill, so we need to bear that in mind, but what she said applies to the panel too. She wrote that

“based on lived experience…there is no authentic provision mechanism or route that cheaply and swiftly would allow an approved palliative care professional…or social worker to act to protect a vulnerable person under the grounds of coercion….Place yourself in a position of being sick or older, coerced by family for financial gain or by a practitioner wanting to save public costs to pursue assisted suicide, the social worker senses it by body language, a squeezing of their wrist, a sharp silencing look. Can you see a judge saying: ‘the social worker sensed a tension in the air and a look’.

Do you think that would serve to reach the threshold to override a request for assisted suicide in a court of law?

In practice, what would happen would be, the social worker will record her concerns on the system, share them with her manager who will go to her manager who will say we do not have funds to consult legal and your evidence provided does not reach threshold anyway.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley can explain the situations in which behaviour criminalised by clause 26(2) would not also amount to an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act, as amended, or indeed to murder. What behaviour would be criminalised here that is not already criminal? Can the hon. Lady think of any instance in which there would be no crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act, but there would be an offence under clause 26(2)? If there is no such instance—I cannot think of one—it strikes me that, at least in respect of coercion and pressure, the offence being created here is redundant and duplicative.

Ministers have rightly stressed the importance of their duty to the statute book. My understanding is that having redundant or duplicative legislation, or indeed duplicative offences, would be inconsistent with our duty to the statute book. One might ask, “What does it matter? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have additional belt-and-braces safeguards in the Bill?” I agree in principle, but I note that when other Members have deployed that argument in relation to adding terms such as “undue influence”, the neutral Ministers have rebuked them by appealing to the duty that we are supposed to have to the statute book. I think the point cuts both ways. Why are we embroidering the statute book with duplicative offences?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman’s views on the Bill, that he would welcome having an actual offence for the purposes of the Bill. Surely that is something that we should all support.

[Danny Kruger]

I support the principle of insisting that inducing people by dishonesty, coercion or pressure to kill themselves should be illegal, but my understanding is that it already is. If it is not illegal, or if there are circumstances in which we need this additional offence that are not already captured by the Suicide Act or the law on murder, I would like to understand what they are. As I say, while it might be helpful to duplicate the offence, I understand that the very sensible convention in our law is that it is not helpful to have two offences relating to the same act because of the opportunity for offenders to play off one offence against the other.

Having duplicative criminal offences can make prosecuting cases harder because the defendant can raise abuse-of-process arguments about whether they have been charged with the most appropriate offence. I understand that the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice are therefore usually very keen to avoid duplicative offences.

Let me give an example of the difference in the treatment of the offence. It is proposed that this offence would be subject to a life sentence, which requires the consent of the DPP. But at least in the one case where it overlaps with murder, this would provide a more favourable treatment for the accused than the other obvious charge. Can that be justified?

Duplicating criminal liability by introducing new offences has far-reaching implications that can disturb the coherence and certainty of criminal law. If one introduces a law that gives prosecutors two criminal offences to choose from to cover one act, some prosecutors will choose one and some will choose the other. This is generally undesirable; indeed, it is unprecedented in the case of homicide, where there is every reason to suspect that it could cause chaos for grieving families in search of justice. Such chaos is all too predictable, for a number of reasons.

Let me give an example. A defendant proven to have procured a suicide by deception will be well advised to plead guilty to the offence contrary to section 26(2) and then contest any attempt to introduce murder proceedings. This matters profoundly. A decision to prosecute is an administrative decision and is subject to judicial review. This is not an academic point; it could cause real distress for bereaved families in deep turmoil seeking justice.

Let us imagine that a person, A, is a new coercive and controlling partner of person B and procures by deception their suicide in order to profit from a will. The family of person B grow suspicious and provide the police with a convincing case for a murder prosecution. The CPS agrees and charges A with murder. A accepts that he procured the suicide by deception. On that basis, he appeals, seeking a remedy in judicial review, saying that the CPS should have charged him with a clause 26(2) offence, not murder. The JR is backed by wealthy pressure groups and is beset with administrative adjournments and so on. From the filing of the claim form to the final judgment of the administrative court within the High Court, the case takes 24 gruelling, painful, awful months for the bereaved family.

Throughout this time, the lawyers for A, the defendant, tell him to stay the course and continue to offer the plea to section 26(2), because the family will be exhausted by the reality of litigation. The family have no legal aid, no support, no charity backing and no one interested in their case. The war of attrition in litigation finally defeats them. They advise the CPS that they will accept a plea under the section 26(2) offence, and not the murder that actually occurred. That is the reality of duplicating criminal liability. In that example, A has got away with murder by judicial review.

We must be clear about what we are being asked to do. It is not simple. We are being asked to innovate in the law of murder. We are being asked to do so without the assistance of the Law Commission, without the careful eye of legal or judicial bodies alive to the difficulties of duplicating liability and without the input of any bodies that represent the victims of crime on how this might affect them. There are no Government consultations with such bodies before us. There is no expert assistance from judicial or legal figures on how the good intentions around clause 26(2) might unintentionally lead to serious and undesirable consequences such as those that I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not consider that through this amended form of the Bill—if the Committee chooses to vote that way—we will have created an opportunity that could be exploited in that way. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that there has not been consultation on that point, but there has been close working of highly experienced Government lawyers with the promoter to reflect her policy intent.

What the clause interlocking—and indeed overlapping, as I have acknowledged—with the Suicide Act does is prescribe new forms of criminal offence and liability that will capture criminal behaviour, which is ultimately what the measure is about. Tellingly, the punishment attached to the clause 26 offence is the same as the maximum punishment for murder, that of life imprisonment, which is indicative of the gravity of the offence that would be caught.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is the point I would like to make: the penalty is the same, but it is important that the offence is specific, hence why I have put it in the Bill. The outcome for the criminal involved, however, would be the same.

[Sarah Sackman]

That is all I intend to say on this matter. I think we have probably ventilated this particular issue as far as we can.

Amendment 506 agreed to.

Amendments made: 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).

Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 510, in clause 27, page 16, line 18, leave out “wilfully” and insert “intentionally or recklessly”.

This is a drafting change, aligning the wording used here with wording used elsewhere in the clause.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 511, in clause 27, page 16, line 22, leave out “that person” and insert “a relevant matter”.

This amendment and amendment 512 clarify that the offence under subsection (2) relates only to an opinion about a matter relating to a function under the Bill.

Amendment 512, in clause 27, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (2) “relevant matter” means a matter relating to any function under this Act.”

See the statement for amendment 511.

Amendment 513, in clause 27, page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A person commits an offence if they intentionally or recklessly fail to comply with an obligation under—

(a) section 14(1A) or (2) (notification of cancellation of declaration), or

(b) section 17 (recording of cancellations).”

This amendment clarifies the scope of the offence under subsection (3), by providing that the offence occurs where a doctor fails to comply with a notification or recording obligation in relation to the cancelling of a first or second declaration.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments relate to the falsification or destruction of documentation and are very straightforward. Amendment 510 makes a drafting change to align the wording of subsection (1)(b) with wording used elsewhere in the clause. Amendments 511 and 512 clarify that the offence under subsection (2) relates only to an opinion about a matter relating to a function under the Bill rather than to the person. Amendment 513 clarifies the scope of the offence under subsection (3) by providing that the offence occurs where a doctor fails to comply with a notification or recording obligation in relation to the cancelling of a first or second declaration.

The amendments significantly improve the clarity, scope and precision of the offences in clause 27, align it with the language used in the rest of the Bill and ensure that it is more consistent. They refine the original provisions, focusing on serious misconduct and offences covered by the clause.

[Danny Kruger]

It is good to see you this evening, Mrs Harris.

I have no objection to the hon. Lady’s amendments. I think there is value in broadening the offence to include actions performed intentionally or recklessly, as that is critical for patient safety. Given the finality of the result of assisted death, there should not be any room for carelessness, and liability must ensure that not only deliberate misconduct but negligent record keeping is subject to legal scrutiny. I want to put on the record the evidence we had from the British Journal of Nursing, which has documented the serious risks of poor record keeping in medical practice. That demonstrates how inadequate documentation contributes to clinical errors.

I think the hon. Lady recognises that this is not just a matter of bureaucratic tidying-up. The principle is straightforward: if the decision to assist in ending a life is to be lawful, the documentation supporting it must be unimpeachable. Expanding liability to cover reckless documentation is entirely consistent with existing legal and professional standards in the UK medical profession.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I will be brief. As we have heard, clause 27 creates various stand-alone criminal offences regarding the falsification or destruction of documentation related to assisted dying. Amendment 510 replaces “wilfully” with “intentionally or recklessly” in subsection (1)(b), to align the wording with that used elsewhere in the clause. The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the other amendments, to tighten up and improve the workability and operability of the Bill.

Amendment 510 agreed to.

Amendments made: 511, in clause 27, page 16, line 22, leave out “that person” and insert “a relevant matter”.

This amendment and amendment 512 clarify that the offence under subsection (2) relates only to an opinion about a matter relating to a function under the Bill.

Amendment 512, in clause 27, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (2) “relevant matter” means a matter relating to any function under this Act.”

See the statement for amendment 511.

Amendment 513, in clause 27, page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A person commits an offence if they intentionally or recklessly fail to comply with an obligation under—

(a) section 14(1A) or (2) (notification of cancellation of declaration), or

(b) section 17 (recording of cancellations).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment clarifies the scope of the offence under subsection (3), by providing that the offence occurs where a doctor fails to comply with a notification or recording obligation in relation to the cancelling of a first or second declaration.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 514, in clause 27, page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequential on NC24.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 515, in clause 27, page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to “an” and insert “A person who commits”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 514.

Amendment 516, in clause 27, page 16, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

New clause 24—Falsification of documentation etc with intention that another will obtain assistance to end own life—

“(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance to a person (B) under this Act to end their own life, they—

(a) make or knowingly use a false instrument which purports to be—

(i) a first declaration,

(ii) a second declaration, or

(iii) a certificate of eligibility,

(b) provide a medical or other professional opinion in respect of B which is false or misleading in a material particular, or

(c) fail to comply with an obligation under section 14(1A) or (2) (notification of cancellation of declaration).

(2) In subsection (1) the reference to assistance under this Act includes assistance purporting to be under this Act.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

This new clause creates an offence in respect of certain conduct, where the person engaging in the conduct does so with the intention of enabling another person to obtain assistance under this Act (or assistance purportedly under this Act).

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

In combination, amendments 514 to 516 and new clause 24 refine and strengthen the legal framework surrounding assisted dying, shifting the focus towards serious fraudulent misconduct and the falsification of documents, and ensuring that prosecutions are conducted with careful oversight by the Director of Public Prosecutions. These changes mark a clear departure from the original drafting, which focused clause 27 more generally on non-compliance with administrative duties, and introduce more severe consequences for deliberate wrongdoing related to the assisted dying process.

New clause 24 is an important addition to the Bill. It creates an offence in respect of certain conduct, where the person engaging in the conduct does so with the intention of enabling another person to obtain assistance under the Act. I made some comments about that previously, so I will leave it there for now, but I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the amendments and new clause.

[Sarah Sackman]

I intend to be brief. New clause 24 and amendments 514 to 516 create stand-alone criminal offences relating to the falsification or destruction of documentation where a person acts with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance to another person to end their own life under the Bill. That reflects the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley that those who falsify documents with the specific intent of facilitating another to end their life should be subject to a higher maximum penalty than those offences in clause 27.

Amendment 514 agreed to.

Amendments made: 515, in clause 27, page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to “an” and insert “A person who commits”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 514.

Amendment 516, in clause 27, page 16, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Prescribing, dispensing, transporting etc of approved substances

--- Later in debate ---

“Overall the quality of evidence for their use is low. Most available evidence is unpublished or limited to expert opinion, observational data, and experiential data”.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points, but I think they are probably more relevant to the debate we had the other day on clause 18. Clause 28 is about the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved substances, rather than the substances themselves.

[Sean Woodcock]

I do not accept that they are not relevant to this clause, I am afraid, but I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. If I may finish my quote, the review continued:

“There is some difficulty in determining which coma inducing mixture has the most evidence, based on the lack of comparative data between each drug regime and different dose trials.”

In their evidence, the pharmacologists wrote:

“Monitoring of drug efficacy and safety should be compulsory in order to assure good clinical care and comply with regulations.”

I agree with that sentiment, and I hope that all hon. Members would too.

The right institutions to approve drugs before use and then monitor their safety during use are those that are named in amendment 443. All substances used for assisted dying must be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. There are significant risks if this rigorous process is not undertaken. The drugs used for assisted dying must be tested to ensure that they are safe and effective for use in assisted death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Mrs Harris; you have helped me to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in a far more pithy and direct way than I could have. I think it is best for us to wait for us to discuss clauses 32 and 39, when we can really get into the meat of the precise issue he raised.

Amendment 521 would change the requirements in clause 28 so that regulations governing the prescribing, dispensing, transporting, storage, handling, disposal and records relating to these activities of approved substances under the Bill must be laid in draft form and approved by resolution in each House of Parliament. This is a change from the current requirement in the Bill that the regulations are subject to the negative procedure. Both procedures are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. However, the requirement for active debate in both Houses of Parliament as a result of the amendment would extend the timeline to make or change regulations.

Amendment 485 is similar. It would alter the requirement in clause 28 that regulations governing prescribing, dispensing, transporting, storage, handling, disposal and records relating to these activities of approved substances are subject to the affirmative procedure, instead of the negative procedure as drafted. Similar to the change of procedure proposed by amendment 521, the affirmative procedure would extend the timeline to make or change regulations.

That is the end of my observations. I hope they were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly about amendments 485 and 521, on which I will respectfully disagree—not for the first time—with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I believe the negative procedure is perfectly adequate in matters of this kind. We had a similar debate the other day.

I will also speak to amendments 442 and 445 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Although I take on board the comments of the Minister about time pressures, I am minded to support both these amendments. Regulations are important and I have no problem with placing the duty on the Secretary of State in those two instances.

[Danny Kruger]

It might appear a procedural issue, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is a profound difference between the negative and affirmative procedure? Why is she content that the regime for the regulation of these lethal drugs, which are at the absolute core of her Bill, be subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, without any likelihood or any real possibility of any sort of debate in Parliament? Why should this not be through the affirmative procedure?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not aware of any situation in which we debate the drugs for any other type of medical provision or healthcare. I appreciate the gravity of the situation but, with all due respect to colleagues, we are not best placed to make those kinds of decisions and it is unnecessary for us to have that debate. Clinicians and experts in pharmacology and medicines are best placed to do that, under the guidance of the Secretary of State.

[Danny Kruger]

Nevertheless, the hon. Lady is proposing that this passes through Parliament, just through the negative procedure. If she thinks there is an appropriate rubberstamp by Parliament—that Parliament needs to approve this regime—why should it not have the opportunity to debate it?

[Kim Leadbeater]

As I have said, I think the negative procedure is the correct level of parliamentary involvement in that process.

Amendment 442 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 443, in clause 28, page 17, line 4, after “substances” insert

“as approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes”.—(Sean Woodcock.)

This amendment requires any regulations made about the prescribing and dispensing of approved substances to be on substances approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

“be referred to the local medical examiner, and if that professional has any reason to doubt that the procedures were not followed, there should be an automatic referral to the coroner.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is indeed what would happen under the Bill as it stands.

[Danny Kruger]

The concern is that it should be automatic. I just cite Professor Ahmedzai’s recognition of the frequent necessity, or the distinct possibility, of a referral to the coroner being appropriate. I suggest that it should happen as a matter of course. I would be grateful to understand from the hon. Lady or the Minister under what circumstances they feel it would be appropriate for a coroner to be involved. The difficulty is that we are putting a lot of emphasis on the role of the local medical examiner to decide whether it should be appropriate for the coroner to consider a case; I suggest that they should consider all cases.

The obligation on coroners need not be over-burdensome. Some coroner’s inquests can be dealt with in as little as 20 minutes if matters are simple and not in dispute, which they would be in the great majority of the cases we are talking about. The presence of this jurisdiction—the ability of the coroner to investigate—would be a most valuable safeguard. It would help to identify whether matters have gone wrong in the act of self-administration and the process of dying, which could significantly assist whatever regulatory regime—we are yet to discover that—oversees the process. It could assist the continuous improvement of the regime.

It would also help to identify issues relating to misdiagnosis, which we know happens often. It is remarkable—and worth pointing out in response to the suggestion that terminal diagnoses are always accurate—that one study found, after autopsy, that one in four cases had been misdiagnosed. Doctors might say somebody is dying of a certain condition, but it turns out they were not.

I take the point that a coroner would not be prohibited by clause 29(1) from launching an investigation in appropriate cases, but given that we do not know what we do not know, it might be hard to decide when that is required. With a new scheme like this, it would be best to start with an investigation in every case. If, in a few years’ time, it appears that the safeguard is not needed, a future Parliament could change the law to reduce it, but I implore the Committee to consider the idea that we should start with the safest Bill we can.

[Sarah Sackman]

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners have a duty to investigate and certify deaths that are reported to them. That duty is triggered when they have a reason to suspect that the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, the cause of death is unknown, or the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention. There are also regulations made under the powers of the 2009 Act that require medical practitioners to notify such deaths to the coroner.

Clause 29(1) disapplies the coroner’s duty to investigate in the case of an assisted death that has been carried out in accordance with the Bill’s provisions. In practice, that would mean the assisted death would instead be certified by an attending practitioner—the doctor who has attended the patient—and scrutinised by an independent medical examiner working in the NHS. Therefore, the attending practitioner and medical examiner, rather than the coroner, would certify the cause of death. It would remain open to anyone—such as a family member or a medical practitioner who has interacted with the deceased and has concerns—to report a death to the coroner if they had concerns that it had not occurred in line with the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 522 would remove the disapplication of the coroner’s duty to investigate in relation to assisted deaths, essentially reversing the Bill’s current provisions. Consequently, given that assisted deaths are inherently unnatural, the amendment would require that the coroner has a duty to investigate each and every assisted death and then certify the cause of death. To answer the hon. Member for East Wiltshire’s point, the bereaved family would, as I have said, be able to raise any concerns with the medical examiner, and the coroner’s duty to investigate would be triggered if they suspected that death had not occurred in line with the process prescribed.

It is important to note that medical examiners follow their own structured process of investigation. They review medical records, consult practitioners involved in the case and then apply the criteria set out from the Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 to determine whether the death meets the threshold for a coroner referral. In doing so, they would proactively speak to family members, thereby providing the opportunity for any concerns to be raised; if there are any, they would make the referral to the coroner. I hope that assists the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will be very brief. My understanding is—I think the Minister said this—that the attending practitioner, the medical examiner or anybody else, including family members, could refer to the coroner if they felt it was necessary or suspected anything untoward. If that is the case, I am content that the Bill is fit for purpose as it stands.

[Danny Kruger]

I will respond quickly. My concern is that, as Thomas Teague said, without clause 29 the coroner would be under a statutory duty to investigate. I recognise that there is an opportunity for an investigation if a family member or the medical practitioner decides to refer it to the coroner. It is unlikely—although they might—that the medical practitioner who has overseen the death would suggest that they themselves had somehow failed in their duty or that there had been a complication they could not have dealt with.

The fact is that the only way a coroner would get involved under the Bill as it stands is if they conclude that there is something wrong on the basis of not knowing what has happened, because they have not performed any investigation. The purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that there is a statutory duty for the coroner to review the death. It is also a point of principle that it is appropriate to record the death as suicide, because that is what has happened—assisted suicide. Nevertheless, given the state of the debate, and that I suspect I am not in the majority in supporting the amendment, I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I absolutely expect this information to be collected. My observation, as ever, is that I do not think we should put the exact details in primary legislation. The powers are clearly there for the Secretary of State to specify what information should be collected. I am struggling to find it, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will move an amendment to require the Secretary of State, when they make provisions and issues guidance under the Bill, to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others in respect of protected characteristics.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have been desperately trying to find the amendment number—I think it is amendment 500 that looks at what will be recorded, and it covers such data as the hon. Member for Richmond Park is requesting.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree that we need the data to ensure that we understand how assisted dying operates in relation to different protected characteristics and geographical distribution, but I am not sure that amendment 273 is the way to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and that is exactly why I made that point. One of the design features of the commissioner model is the monitoring function, through which they will undertake annual reporting and an assessment of patterns in the practice, should the legal regime come into force. That is exactly how I anticipate it working.

The commissioner can also be self-correcting and say, “We need to see more information on this because it is a concern. We have this equalities data”—or whatever data we have collected—“and we need to see more on this aspect, because this pattern is a concern to us or it would help to illuminate how the practice is operating.” That is all I wanted to add, because one has to appreciate the operation of the regime as a whole.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As has been alluded to by various Committee members, I fully support the intention behind amendment 273, but I think it will be covered already. I have mentioned my amendment 500, but amendment 455 is probably more pertinent. It looks at the annual report that the assisted dying commissioner would produce, which makes reference to protected characteristics, and sets out that any other such data can and should be collected under regulations.

I am therefore confident that that report would encompass the points made by amendment 273, and that reference is made to the analysis that is covered by amendment 274. I feel confident that the intention will be met by the introduction of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, but I wholeheartedly agree that data collection is a fundamentally important part of the process.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to make a couple of further points in response to some of the those raised by Members. First, I have looked at amendment 500, which the hon. Member for Spen Valley directed me to, and I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for showing it to me—her record keeping is much better than mine. I was going to say that amendment 500 does not cover a lot of the areas that I have raised, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just referred me to amendment 455.

However, it is important to say that amendment 455 refers only to “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010. I specified particular characteristics in amendment 273 in response to some of the evidence that we received. In particular, I included the person’s age in response to evidence that we received from Together for Short Lives, which represents children’s hospices including Shooting Star in Richmond. It had specific concerns about the issue of assisted death being raised with young people under 18, and that is why I specified that. I also included gender and ethnicity, which I mentioned earlier, and that came through very strongly in a lot of the oral evidence that we received.

To address the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, I did not hear sexuality being raised as a risk factor at any point. Obviously, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience a great deal of discrimination, but I have not heard it raised as a specific risk factor for assisted dying, which is why it is not on the list. I have included the person’s postcode because I do not know a better way of assessing whether someone is from a low-income background. I particularly draw the attention of hon. Member for Spen Valley to that characteristic, because it is obviously not protected under the Equality Act, so I remain really concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

In light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I do not have anything further to add, other than to note what he has said.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Codes of practice

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Amendment 447 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central; I also speak in support of amendment 523, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and helpfully clarifies amendment 447. My understanding was that the Bill’s promoter indicated that this was something she would support; I am happy to give way so she can clarify.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I confirm that I am happy to support amendment 447.

[Naz Shah]

Perfect. I thank my hon. Friend—I like it when we get to amendments that are supported.

Amendment 447 would literally change the word “may” to “must” in clause 30. The first four matters that the clause lists are so important that issuing codes of practice cannot be left just as a choice for the Secretary of State; it must be something that the Secretary of State has to do. It is worth pointing out, as I am learning about this new process, that when we leave it to the Secretary of State, that means a Secretary of State under any Government, depending on how long it takes. It is not necessarily just our Government; it could be another Government. I am just pointing that out, because somebody pointed it out very clearly to me, and I was shocked by that detail.

The Bill sets out five areas of responsibility that the codes could cover. They include some of the most consequential matters that this Committee is considering, as set out in clause 30. The first four are doctor’s assessments of

“whether a person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life,”

and whether that person has capacity to do so, accounting for the effect of depression and other mental disorders on decision making; the

“treatment or palliative, hospice or other care available to the person”;

the provisions for effectively communicating with them; and

“the arrangements for providing approved substances to the person… and the assistance which such a person may be given”.

They are all vital and I am pleased that this amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has to issue codes of conduct, rather than being able to decide that they may not do so.

If these matters were not covered by codes of practice, they could be left to individual doctors to interpret, which would mean that doctors would face having to make unfamiliar and complex decisions without the clear guidance that a code of practice would give. That could have created—indeed, it would have created—dangers for both doctors and for people seeking assisted dying.

The fifth area of responsibility for the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 30, is codes of practice on:

“such other matters relating to the operation of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

It seems clear to me that, because the Secretary of State will issue codes of practice for the first four areas of responsibility, they must also issue codes for other matters if they see a need for them. I am confident that we all agree on that.

Amendment 523 would make it clear that the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice on any other matters as they see appropriate, but they would not have to do so if they thought there were no other matters that needed such codes. That is a sensible clarification that preserves what the Bill drafters were doing when they wrote the clause. If the Bill passes, we will be authorising doctors to depart from centuries of previous practice. They will face decisions that they have not previously had to take. I am pleased that, if the Bill passes, the Government will be able to set out the clearest possible guidelines for medical professionals in accordance with the many provisions in this clause.

Doctors in England and Wales have never previously had to assess whether someone has a clear and settled intention, and it is surely unfair to ask them to work out how to make that judgment without clear guidance from a code of practice. A code of practice also mitigates the risk that different doctors will approach this task in widely differing ways. The truth is that the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is untested in relation to assisted death, where a person will take lethal drugs to end their life.

Codes of practice will address important and difficult questions of interpretation. Again, that will give us much-needed clarity, including in the area of the provision of palliative care to people considering assisted dying and how doctors advise them. The independent commission on palliative and end of life care found that knowledge of palliative care among doctors is often limited, so the Secretary of State’s intervention will be much appreciated, and the codes will give a settled direction.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted amendment 447. I look forward to working through the rest of the Bill and getting some more amendments passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

This group of amendments relates to clause 30 of the Bill and the codes of practice that may be issued by the Secretary of State.

As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State may issue one or more codes of practice in connection with arrangements pertinent to the assisted dying process. Amendment 447 requires the Secretary of State to issue such codes, substituting “must” for “may”. As such, codes of practice would need to be issued for all matters listed in clause 30(1).

Amendment 394 has the effect of broadening to Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice, explicitly enabling the Secretary of State to issue guidance in connection with

“information and support to persons with learning disabilities who are eligible to request assistance”

under the Bill, including information and support about the role of advocates. I note that under the Equality Act 2010, health providers are already under a duty to make reasonable adjustments in the provision of services, including for persons with a learning disability. That duty includes taking steps to provide information, including on what support services are available.

As drafted, clause 30(1)(c) provides that the Secretary of State may issue codes of practice on

“the arrangements for ensuring effective communication in connection with the provision of assistance…including the use of interpreters”.

Amendment 448 provides that, if the Secretary of State issues codes of practice that include the use of interpreters, those interpreters should be “registered and qualified”. The amendment would limit those who are able to translate to only those who are registered and have a recognised qualification. However, the amendment does not state who or what such a registration would be with, or what would constitute a recognised and appropriate level of qualification.

Amendment 534 adds to the list of codes of practice that the Secretary of State may issue. The addition is a code of practice on the acceptable forms of proof of identity when a person makes a first declaration. Clause 6(3) of the Bill already provides a regulation-making power that sets out the acceptable forms of proof of identity. Amendment 534 would give the Secretary of State a power to make codes of practice about how someone can ensure they are compliant with the requirements set out under clause 6(3). The amendment has little practical effect, because clause 30(1)(e) already provides a wide power for issuing codes of practice, providing that the Secretary of State may issue codes of practice on

“such other matters relating to the operation of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

Amendment 523 allows the Secretary of State to issue further codes of practice at his discretion, should they not be covered by the preceding subsection (1) of this clause. The Bill’s promoter has said she is minded to support amendment 447, and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire asks whether, if amendment 447 is incorporated into the Bill, that renders amendment 523 unnecessary or surplus to requirements. I am not entirely sure, so I will quickly check while the Bill’s promoter is making her remarks and come back to him immediately.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thought we were going to get a full house with this group, but let us have a look. I am minded to support amendment 447, as I have previously said. I will wait to hear from the Minister the impact that that will have on amendment 523.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I can confirm that amendment 523 is a helpful amendment as 447 is incorporated, so that is all fine—we are good with that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is very helpful indeed. In that case I am very pleased to support amendment 523 in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire as well. I am also minded to support amendment 394 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, which I think is very sensible, like his other amendments that I have supported. I am not sure that amendment 534 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is entirely necessary, but I fully understand the sentiment and therefore I am minded to support that amendment as well.

That brings me on to the final amendment, 448. I wanted to support this amendment, but I have taken on board the Minister’s comments on the lack of clarity about what it means to be registered and qualified. As such, I cannot support that amendment this evening, but I think we could look at coming up with something on Report that would achieve the objective that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central intended.

Amendment 447 agreed to.

Amendment made: 394, in clause 30, page 18, line 24, at end insert—

“(ba) the provision of information and support to persons with learning disabilities who are eligible to request assistance to end their own life under this Act, including the role of advocates for such persons;”—(Daniel Francis.)

Amendment made: 416, in clause 30, page 18, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).—(Jack Abbott.)

This amendment is linked to Amendment 417.

Amendment made: 430, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails;”.—(Daniel Francis.)

[Dr Tidball]

I beg to move amendment 517, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) arrangements for a qualifying person requesting assistance to end their own life to receive the support of an independent advocate under section [Independent advocate].”

This amendment would add arrangements for a qualifying person to receive the support of an independent advocate (NC25) to the list of matters that codes of practice may be issued on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 517 relates to new clause 25, which I will come to next. The amendment would make provision for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice regarding arrangements for a qualifying person to receive the support of an independent advocate, as set out under new clause 25. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the appointment of independent advocates.

The role of the independent advocate would be to provide support and advocacy to a qualifying person seeking to understand options around end-of-life care, including the possibility of requesting access to assisted dying. A qualifying person is defined in the new clause as someone who has a learning disability, a mental disorder as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983, or autism; or who might experience substantial difficulty in understanding the processes or communicating their views, wishes or feelings; or who meets criteria specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.

Although the new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the appointment of independent advocates, there is discretion as to what those regulations should include. The new clause sets out a non-exhaustive list of the things that the regulations may provide. The effect of this is that the new clause leaves open who would be obliged to ensure that an independent advocate is present and the precise nature of the obligations around their appointment. It is also unclear how a person would be determined to be a qualifying person, as the definition is quite broad and encompasses a wide range of people with varying support and advocacy needs.

Finally, although the new clause would enable provisions to be made about payments of independent advocates, it is not clear who would make these payments or how they would be funded.

I hope those observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has made a powerful and passionate case for the provision of independent advocates, and, as always, has done an outstanding job of advocating for people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, mental disorders and autism, as she has done throughout this entire process.

It is essential that anybody considering the choice at the end of life made possible by this Bill should fully understand the nature and consequences of any decision they may make. These amendments have made me reflect on comments—I think made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire a few weeks ago—about the purpose of the Bill. He proposed that the Bill is either about choice and autonomy or it is about safeguards. Actually, this group presents very clear evidence that it is and must be about both, and I hope he can support the amendments.

I take on board the Minister’s comments. I heard an element of caution from him, and I am happy to work with the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge if there are any further requirements prior to Report stage, but I am very happy to support the amendment and the new clause.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It sounds that I may also have the support of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, which also makes me very happy at this stage of the evening!

I tabled these amendments because I passionately believe in inclusive healthcare for disabled people, removing barriers to such healthcare where possible, and ensuring that disabled people have a strong voice in advocating for themselves and the healthcare they need or desire. I have tried to write the amendment and the new clause to ensure that access to an independent advocate operates across the functions of the Bill. I have been keen to ensure that this provision acts in conjunction with new clause 27, which I will speak about at a later stage. I hope, as I said in an earlier response to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that that will provide a solid and robust opportunity to monitor the impact on disabled people of the Bill, if it does pass through Parliament, through its implementation and in practice. Taken together, the measures will create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a voice and will provide a strong structure for accountability in the Bill.

I acknowledge the Minister’s comments, and will work with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to ensure that it is watertight.

Amendment 517 agreed to.

Amendment made: 534, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of section 6.”—(Jack Abbott.)

Amendment made: 523, in clause 30, page 18, line 31, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may issue one or more codes of codes of practice in connection with any matters relating to the operation of this Act not required under subsection (1) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment, which works together with Amendment 447, would clarify that the Secretary of State is not required to issue a code of practice under subsection (1)(e) but instead has the discretionary power to issue further codes of practice as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Amendment made: 417, in clause 30, page 18, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue one or more codes of practice in connection with the arrangements for ensuring effective communication in connection with the provision of assistance to persons in accordance with this Act, including the use of interpreters.”—(Jack Abbott.)

This amendment is linked to Amendment 416.

Amendments made: 216, in clause 30, page 18, line 37, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 217, in clause 30, page 18, line 38, leave out “that procedure” and insert “section 39”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will speak on amendment 524, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. As the Bill stands, a person is required to “have regard to” any codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State when performing a function under the Bill. Amendment 524 would mean that individuals are instead required to “comply with” the codes of practice issued. That could limit someone to doing only what is specified in the code, rather than allowing them to exercise their professional discretion to perform the function in the most appropriate way, having given regard to the code. It is also unclear from the amendment who would monitor or enforce compliance with the codes. Codes of practice are normally detailed practical guidance on how to comply with legal obligations, and are generally not legally binding.

I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but as the Minister said, codes of practice serve a particular purpose. Everyone has to comply with and abide by the law, but codes of practice are there to assist in the exercise of a person’s professional judgment. I worry about losing the ability for professionally trained and regulated people to use their professional discretion and have the flexibility they need to do their jobs well, if we accepted this amendment.

I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire answered his own question in his description of what a code of practice does. Although the amendment comes from a good place, I cannot support it. We need to have flexibility, and trust in our professionals to do their job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 31(2) provides that, before preparing guidance under the clause, the relevant CMO must consult such persons as they consider appropriate. Amendment 395 would add a duty for the CMO to consult persons with learning disabilities before preparing such guidance. That may call into question why other specific groups are not expressly listed.

Amendment 396 would include persons with learning disabilities as an additional category of people to which the CMOs must have regard in relation to preparing practical and accessible information, advice and guidance under clause 31. The effect would be to include persons with learning disabilities as a specific category of people in addition to the listed categories. This could imply that those with learning disabilities would not already be included in one of the categories already listed, namely

“persons requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives…next of kin and families of such persons”

and “the general public.”

Clause 31 sets out a duty on the chief medical officers for England and Wales to publish public-facing guidance relating to the operation of the legislation. It has rightly been a matter for the Committee to determine amendments to the clause, and the Government will respect the will of Parliament. As Members will know, the Government have been working with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, on amendments to ensure that, if passed, the legislation will be legally robust and workable.

On this clause, we intend to support the development of further such technical amendments on Report. Where amendments are required to clarify the obligations in relation to the preparation of guidance, we will work with the promoter to ensure that MPs receive good notice to give them adequate time for consideration. I hope those observations were helpful for the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I briefly show my support for these amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

Amendment 395 agreed to.

Amendment made: 396, in clause 31, page 19, line 14, at end insert—

“(ba) persons with learning disabilities;”—(Daniel Francis.)

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Bambos Charalambous.)

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

That is not a prospect I particularly want to reflect on, but it is worth noting that the particular risk in assisted dying services is that, as we heard in oral evidence from the chief medical officer, it is really hard to define, first, whether an illness is going to be terminal and, secondly, that somebody has only six months to live. There is an element of subjective judgment in assessing who is going to be eligible for assisted dying. Aligning subjective judgment to a profit incentive could create a serious ethical minefield.

I want to state absolutely clearly for the record that I am not questioning the ethics of doctors or the ethical standards of doctors or of any of the bodies that represent them in any way at all. My question is merely about introducing a profit incentive to this issue. As I said, this process could be contrasted with something like the provision of abortion services. Abortion services are clearly available only to pregnant women. The fact that the qualification, as it were, for this service is on a rather more subjective basis creates a risk.

Without this amendment, I am concerned that the Bill commodifies the end-of-life process and pushes what should be a sensitive, careful process towards being a transactional one. It also increases the risk that everything becomes focused on facilitating ending the patient’s life rather than supporting the holistic ethos of the NHS in addressing all the patient’s needs. Without the amendment, I worry that the Bill opens a door to the commodification of death, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has so graphically anticipated. What should be a careful, compassionate process could slide into something more transactional: a service that is marketed, packaged and sold.

We need look only to the parallel of care homes to see that danger writ large. In England, social care has been quietly overtaken by for-profit providers. Today, 75% of adult care homes, and over 80% of children’s homes, are run for profit—not by design or explicit policy, but by the slow creep of market forces. The Economics Observatory, drawing on studies such as Patwardhan et al. 2022, Barron and West 2017 and Bach-Mortensen et al. 2022, reveals a stark truth: for-profit care, particularly where private equity is involved, consistently delivers worse outcomes.

Similarly, a 2019 BMJ study found that private providers running NHS-funded services had higher rates of complications in procedures such as hip replacements compared with NHS trusts. The focus on cost efficiency can lead to skimping on follow-up care or using less experienced staff. Why does that happen? Profit-seeking behaviour drives cuts to staff, to resources and to time. Now, if we transpose that to assisted dying, let us imagine the pressures on a private provider to trim costs and the pressures on the quality of assessments. How thoroughly are mental health conditions, or the risk that something else might be going on, explored? How great is the depth of attention to medical records? Is what is relevant to the doctor influenced by the ticking clock? Will they tick a box rather than a safeguard?

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady said that she is not questioning the ethical judgment and practice of doctors, but the comments she is making suggest otherwise.

[Sarah Olney]

Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

We do not have the model to scrutinise, and we do not know within that whether the first or second co-ordinating doctor will be paid for their services in carrying out those initial assessments. To say that there is no incentive for making the final decision ignores the fact that people might be incentivised for making those initial decisions, where the professional judgment is required and may differ between doctors. That is why there is a risk.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Clause 40(4) is very clear that medical practitioners can receive only “reasonable remuneration” for the provision of services, so it is clear that they cannot make money from the provision of assisted dying. Is the hon. Lady saying that where there is a private provider or one commissioned by the NHS—the model that I have set out in the Bill—there is a financial incentive for doctors to do more hip or knee operations, or other things? That is a question about the model of public and private healthcare as it stands, not about assisted dying.

[Sarah Olney]

On the hon. Member’s comment about clause 40, “reasonable” is a fairly elastic term. We will find in time that the word “reasonable” will come to have its own accepted definition, but it does not preclude a profit margin.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would argue that it does.

[Sarah Olney]

But the Bill does not say that. It does not say that the payment to the doctor should not include any consideration of profit. Regarding hip operations, someone would have one only if they needed it. My point is that assisted dying is one of a range of options at the end of life being presented here. The concern is that people motivated by profit would be incentivised to push for assisted dying at the expense of other options for the patient that do not attract the same level of reward. That is the issue. It is not a binary decision in the way that most treatments are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

It transformed the quality of life of British citizens at a time of mass unemployment and widespread slums, ensuring free healthcare, in the words of Beveridge, from cradle to grave. The provision of healthcare free at the point of delivery was life-changing and life-prolonging. Although it is far from perfect, we have seen time and time again that as a country we can be very proud of the NHS.

The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948, as a direct consequence of the Beveridge report. Section 1 of the Act states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

It was set up to help people to get better and live healthy lives, and to give hope in situations where otherwise there would be despair. It was lifesaving and life-changing. New clause 36 turns all that on its head. Subsection (4) states that:

“Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”

If this new clause passes, the founding principles of the NHS will be monumentally changed to include helping eligible people to commit suicide. That is what it does.

I want to be really clear that it is entirely possible to support assisted dying—to want to ensure that a small group of people, whom palliative care cannot help, have that assisted dying option—but not to support this new clause, which forces provision of the service through the same channels as normal healthcare. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment or a healthcare service and accordingly there should be a degree of separation.

We should be incredibly cautious about incorporating the service into the NHS. It will forever change the relationship between doctor and patient, breed mistrust and fear, discourage vulnerable groups from seeking the healthcare they need and fundamentally violate the Hippocratic oath. Dr Catherine Day, a senior partner of a large GP practice in Coventry, states:

“Trust lies at the heart of the doctor patient relationship. I believe this trust will be shattered if patients consider that their GP…may think that they should end their life and stop being a drain on our NHS.”

Siwan Seaman, a palliative care consultant said:

“How could a terminally ill patient trust a doctor if they know that the doctor was prescribing medication to the patient in the next bed in a bay or cubicle with the intention of ending their life. Letting these assessments take place alongside other NHS services will irreversibly impact on patients’ trust in healthcare professionals and negatively impact our therapeutic relationship with patients as doctors.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

If the hon. Lady is saying that she would not want to see assisted dying services within the NHS, then where does she think they would sit? Would she support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s suggestion that this should be done by the voluntary sector and charities, or would she suggest the private sector?

[Rebecca Paul]

It is important that there is a degree of separation, but I would say to the hon. Lady that it would have made more sense for her to put forward a proposal that we could evaluate, assess, and identify the upsides and downsides of. It would be much easier for me to then come up with suggestions. It does not make sense to ask me, “What is the solution and how would you do this?”, and for me to lay out the many different ways that this could be done, without having first laid a proposal in front of me.

[Kim Leadbeater]

There is a clause that I have laid before the hon. Lady—that is what we are discussing. I will come on to that in my comments. Since she is clear that she does not think this sits within the NHS, she must have given consideration to where she thinks it should sit, if it were to come into effect.

[Rebecca Paul]

I will come on to some of that, and it goes back to my belief that there should be a degree of separation. I think it should be separate from normal healthcare services and there are multiple ways that we could do that. I regret that we are not specifically debating the various different options, with a proposal in front of us detailing exactly how it would work. I am assuming, from the new clause put forward, that the proposal is for this to go through the NHS as healthcare; that is the only assumption I can make based on what is in front of me in this Bill, because there is no other detail to give me any other impression.

Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician in north Wales, argues for a separate service so that ordinary NHS care is not associated with assisted dying. She said:

“It is already my experience that patients and their families are anxious about limiting treatment when they are dying. Many people believe that symptom control medication, such as those delivered in a syringe-driver to aid symptom control amount to hastening or bringing on death. This perception can hinder the patient’s acceptance of medications which can afford significant alleviation of distressing symptoms.”

I have raised my concerns about providing an assisted dying service alongside and in conjunction with day-to-day healthcare many times over the last few weeks. I think it is a massive mistake both for patients and healthcare staff. It blurs the lines of what a treatment is, increases the risk of bad decisions and, as we heard so powerfully from Dr Jamilla Hussain, it will discourage some of the most vulnerable groups from seeking essential healthcare. We have received so much evidence and it is really important that we take it on board, so I will be quoting some in my speech.

Dr Green of the BMA said:

“It should be set up through a separate service with a degree of separation. We believe that is important for patients, because it would reassure patients who may be anxious about the service that it would not just be part of their normal care… It would reassure doctors, because doctors who did not want to have any part would not feel that it was part of their normal job, whereas the doctors who wanted to go ahead would be assured of having support, emotional support and proper training.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 45, Q32.]

In oral evidence, Professor Preston argued for a separate system and pointed to the Swiss example. She said:

“In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about ‘do not resuscitate’ orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things”.

She went on to talk about the Swiss system, also being adopted in Germany and Austria, which seeks to

“protect these people by keeping it one step removed”

from normal healthcare. She said:

“Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 246, Q317.]

I therefore support amendment 525, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would amend clause 32 in order not to allow the provision of the assisted dying service to be done through the health service. That would ensure that much-needed degree of separation. In light of what the Bill’s promoter has said, I recognise that there are different ways to do that; I am very open to those different ways, but I need to see that degree of separation from normal healthcare. I also support new amendment (a) to new clause 36, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which does the same thing.

Let me come to the other amendments in this group. Amendments 537 and 528, tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley and for Richmond Park respectively, are important to debate—we have had some good debate on them this morning—as they raise the different ways of delivering an assisted dying service. I have been listening closely to the points made. Amendment 537 would limit the provision of an assisted death to charities rather than to the NHS, and conversely, amendment 528 would limit provision to public authorities only.

I do not have the answer on the best way to do this, and that is why I regret that a royal commission has not been set up to properly investigate and evaluate all the options and recommend the best way forward. Instead, we are here without all the relevant information and expertise available to us, trying to land on the best way to do it. That is not the way to make such an important decision. I can tell the Committee, however, that—like many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire—I have huge reservations about delivering such a service through the NHS alongside normal healthcare.

I agree with much of the evidence that has already been cited: there should be a degree of separation. The BMA said that assisted dying could be part of the NHS, but should be outside existing care pathways and separate in some way:

“Our view is that assisted dying should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways—it is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role… The separate service could take the form of a professional network of specially trained doctors from across the country who have chosen to participate, who come together to receive specialised training, guidance, and both practical and emotional support. They would then provide the service within their own locality—for example, in the patient’s usual hospital, or their home. Or it could be a combination of some specialist centres and an outreach facility.”

In its written evidence, the Royal College of General Practitioners also proposed a separate service:

“The establishment of a separate service which covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines (including GPs) who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”

I agree with both bodies that the service should be separated out in some way. It is now apparent that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whose amendments would have created an assisted dying agency, was on the right track. I regret that the Committee did not explore his ideas in any real detail during our proceedings.

We received important written evidence from Robert Twycross, a pioneer of palliative care who sadly died in October, but had given his friend Ariel Dempsey permission to submit it. Dr Dempsey writes:

“Twycross recommends a de-medicalized model in which AD is a separate service, delivered outside of healthcare practice. He argues for a standalone Department for Assisted Dying, separate from the NHS. He writes, ‘Data indicate that the primary reason for a persistent desire for AD is to relieve distress over a perceived loss of autonomy and to experience a sense of personal control over the circumstances of their dying. These are not medical reasons. Thus, for patients fulfilling the legal criteria, a separate AD service should be established. Indeed, this would be the best way to prevent a corrosive effect on medical practice generally.’ ‘Given the widespread disquiet felt by doctors, a law with minimal medical involvement would be the most equitable.’ He suggests, ‘One way to achieve this would be for [AD] to be delegated to a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying, completely separate from the NHS and with its own budget. Victoria almost achieves this with its combination of Care Navigators, mandatory training for participating doctors, and a separate Voluntary Assisted Dying Statewide Pharmacy Service.’

Twycross emphasizes that hospice and palliative care must be a ‘sanctuary’ for patients – ‘an assisted dying free zone. Even in the absence of AD, some people decline referral to palliative care despite unrelieved pain and/or other distressing symptoms because they fear they will be “drugged to death”…This unfounded fear will most likely be enhanced if AD is legalized, particularly if palliative care is involved’ and result in an overall increase in suffering.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr—thank you very much, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to clause 32 stand part and to new clauses 36 and 37.

It is gratifying that everybody on the Committee has taken so seriously the need to recognise where the powers lie in relation to the Senedd in Wales and Welsh Ministers, and Westminster and the Secretary of State. The evidence we heard from Professor Emyr Lewis is that clause 32 would contravene the Sewel convention by giving the UK Government powers of regulation to provide an assisted dying service in the NHS in Wales.

I am very appreciative of the way in which we have discussed the matter. This is, of course, a private Member’s Bill; by the nature of the subject it is discussing, it is unprecedented since devolution in 1999. As we talk about constitutional matters and the Sewel convention, it is important to remember what we are doing as a Bill Committee: we are trying to make sure that we tease out the questions about the environment in which all these services will be provided, and that we are giving people who are at the most vulnerable time in their life the appropriate protection and the appropriate autonomy. That is what we should always be balancing.

New clause 36, which relates to England, and new clause 37 certainly appear—I use the word with as much generosity as I can—to clarify the responsibilities as between Welsh Ministers and Secretaries of State. My amendments would go through the Bill clause by clause and would then insert a definition into clause 40, rather than making a broad statement as the new clauses do.

Although we have debated the content of new clause 36, I believe strongly that it is not for us in Westminster to specify how Welsh Ministers may make provision for those areas over which they have responsibility. It is appropriate that we have a debate, because that raises awareness of the potential for a legislative consent motion or motions. It is appropriate to have that discussion; it is also appropriate to be aware that there may be a discussion about the commencement date and the implications, which we will address in the debate on a later amendment.

I am looking particularly at Wales, and new clause 37 would do what my amendments were attempting: it would give us future-proofing. The powers that have been granted to the Senedd in Wales are considerably different, and lesser in their extent, than those that have been granted to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. That may well change in future, and new clause 37 would allow for that.

I put it on the record that I await further discussions between Welsh Ministers and the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although I understand that some have already taken place. It is already on the record that UK Ministers, the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I will have further discussions as we move ahead. There will be opportunities on Report to do what the Committee is trying to achieve, which is to future-proof the legislation and ensure that it works as effectively as possible.

I welcome the changes that the new clauses would make. Clause 32, as it stands, does not recognise the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, and it is important that we do that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her constructive and collegiate approach to the Committee, particularly on devolution. I have contacted the Welsh Government and am keen to speak to them when Committee proceedings have finished. They have said that they are happy to do that. I am keen to continue to work with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues on devolution to ensure that we get the Bill right for the people of England and Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. I think there is a lesson to be learned. I understand that the legislation is unprecedented in coming through the private Member’s Bill route. After this, we will have to think about how we deal with such legislation because we are feeling our way. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the co-operation of colleagues on something for which there is no road map, but I fear, although I also appreciate, that we are making the road map as we go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have observed two things this morning. First, the reality has really hit home. Are we going to look at the amendment regarding local authorities providing the service? Are we excluding private providers? Are we excluding big firms? A new service has to be designed. Will it be two organisations or one? How will the Bill be delivered? We do not even have that before us, and that concerns me deeply.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, it is common practice in healthcare and in the NHS for services to be commissioned in a range of ways. We would not put such a level of detail in the Bill, but it would be normal practice for the Secretary of State to do that commissioning work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West has her own experience of that, I imagine.

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely. As a former commissioner, I am very familiar with commissioning; I commissioned millions of pounds’ worth of services across Bradford when I was in the NHS. The difference is that that was under Government Bills that had pre-consultation, impact assessments and a model that was debated. None of that has happened with this Bill. I agree that in an ideal world the process set out in new clauses 36 and 37 would be the right one, but without an impact assessment and a consultation, I am afraid that I have been left really disheartened.

I am disheartened about something else, too. I thank all Committee members, regardless of the points that they have or have not made, for the way in which the debate has been conducted, both before and during our sittings. On a few occasions, hon. Members have questioned other Members’ reasons for tabling amendments—but to suggest, as has been suggested today, that we are scaremongering, when we are actually going through the detail, is something else.

I am afraid. This is not me scaremongering; this is me being afraid for women who are anorexic. This is a gendered Bill. There are amendments that I support because I want to strengthen the Bill. I genuinely do not think that the Bill, as it stands, has that strength. I feel disheartened that we are talking about what is going to happen on Third Reading and potential votes, when we should be concentrating on the amendments on the selection list.

I oppose the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which would replace clause 32. As my hon. Friend explained, new clause 36 outlines the powers that the Secretary of State for Health would have over voluntary assisted dying services in England. New clause 37 does the same for Wales, but makes changes that are necessary because health is a devolved power. I will concentrate on new clause 36, as I represent a constituency in England.

Put very simply, if new clause 36 is agreed to, it will give the Secretary of State three sorts of power. First, it will give the Health Secretary powers under subsection (4) to, effectively, change the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, it will give the Health Secretary powers to set out regulations about how any service, whether public or private, carries out assisted dying services. Thirdly, the Health Secretary will have powers under subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. As I understand it, the wording means that assisted dying services could be provided directly by the NHS or by private firms working on contract for the NHS. I will discuss those powers in the order in which I mentioned them.

Subsection (4) of new clause 36 says that the Health Secretary may pass regulations that

“may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”

To make it clear how the new clause works, I will quote from the subsection of the National Health Service Act 2006 that it would affect. It states:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”

That Act is an adaptation of the original National Health Service Act 1946, section 1(1) of which states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

The 1946 and 2006 Acts both give the Health Secretary a very clear set of duties that I think we can all support. Those duties have been the basis of how the NHS has been run for the nearly eight decades for which it has existed.

My hon. Friend’s Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to change the duties set out in section 1(1) of the 2006 Act. I ask my hon. Friend and both Ministers why the Bill needs to give the Secretary of State those powers. The only reason I can think of is that someone who was part of the drafting process has pointed out that the Health Secretary’s current duties might be incompatible with assisted dying.

The Health Secretary has duties to secure improvement in the people’s physical and mental health and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness. Someone could bring a legal challenge on the basis that assisted dying does not fit with that duty, and that challenge might well succeed. I think that, to prevent that happening, my hon. Friend has proposed subsection (1) of new clause 36. If there is any other reason why she has suggested that we should give those powers to the Secretary of State, it is important that the Committee understands and hears it.

What is proposed underlines just how major a change the Bill would make. Since the NHS started operations in 1948, we have had a clear understanding of what it is there for. The 2006 Act is little different from the 1946 Act in that respect. For nearly 80 years, we have had an NHS that is there to improve health and to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. The fact that we may have to change that shows us that we are taking a very big step indeed. To make such a fundamental change to the NHS, we should have had the best possible evidence and proper consultation, not three days of witness hearings and then hundreds of pieces of written evidence, often published after we had finished discussing the topics to which they relate. That is nowhere near good enough.

The next set of powers that I want to talk about is mentioned in subsection (3) of new clause 36, which says that the Health Secretary

“may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).”

I absolutely accept that if we have assisted dying services in England, the Health Secretary should ensure that they are properly regulated. That will have to include privately provided services as well as those offered on the NHS. However, I must ask: why does the Bill say that the Secretary of State “may” pass such regulations? The best interpretation I can think of is that a future Health Secretary might decide that private firms should provide assisted dying services directly to paying customers rather than via outsourced NHS contracts. In that case, the Health Secretary would need to provide regulations for those private sector services.

If that interpretation is correct, surely we could have tighter wording. For example, the new clause could say that if the Secretary of State decides to allow private firms to provide assisted dying to paying customers, the Secretary of State must make regulations to govern that. I would welcome clarification on the point, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley previously accepted an amendment—I think it was amendment 477—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I will get back to the point, Mrs Harris.

Serco and G4S carried on getting huge public contracts because the Government found it too hard to replace them. Assisted dying would also be a specialised service.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned a couple of companies. I have to say that I do not know very much about those companies. Are they healthcare providers? Do they deliver healthcare?

[Naz Shah]

Some of them do, or they deliver parts of healthcare. Any company can bid or design a service to recruit doctors, as I said earlier. That is the reason I mention these companies. Big companies already do provide some services to our NHS, albeit that they may be in different areas at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

New clause 36 specifies that the Secretary of State will, by regulation, set out the operating framework for the delivery of the assisted dying service. That will be the change to the legislation that is required. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am missing something. I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes here. What I am saying is that new clause 36 provides the basis for the delivery of the service. I am sorry if I am missing his point, but that is my understanding.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The Minister is absolutely right. The point is that new clause 36 provides that provision for assisted dying services can be made through the NHS. It gives flexibility: if the NHS Act needed to be amended, it could be, but that is certainly not the intention at this stage. The Act has been amended on numerous occasions, not least by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is very helpful, because I perhaps did not quite understand what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said. My hon. Friend sets out very clearly the optionality represented in new clause 36.

The new clause further ensures that voluntary assisted dying services provided as part of the health service must be free of charge, unless charging is expressly provided for. Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under this new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they cannot amend the provisions in this Bill. The amendment also defines voluntary assisted dying services.

Amendment (a) to new clause 36 would prohibit regulations being made that authorise the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in England. The Secretary of State would still have a duty to ensure that arrangements are made for the provision of assistance, but not by the NHS. The Secretary of State could, for example, make arrangements for another body to provide assistance, which would mean that the Secretary of State could not ensure that assistance was provided in accordance with the Bill or through the NHS in England. This would apply only to England, not Wales. Welsh Ministers could still make regulations for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in Wales. This could result in a divergence between England and Wales in the provision of assisted dying services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I was cut off in my prime, but I am ready to start again.

New clause 37 will give the Welsh Ministers a power to make regulations about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including regulations to secure that arrangements are made for voluntary assisted dying services to be provided in Wales. Such regulations can make any provision that could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru and that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations about such services where this would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.

Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under the new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they could not amend the provisions in the Bill. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have had some excellent and extremely thorough debates covering all aspects of the Bill since the Committee first met. There has been an unprecedented level of scrutiny, and rightly so, given the gravity of the issue. The clause before us is one of the most important that we will consider. Without it, the Bill’s objective of offering a compassionate and dignified choice to terminally ill adults could not be met. The injustices of the status quo would remain, with too many people travelling abroad to seek an assisted death or taking matters into their own hands here at home, alone and often before they need to, in order to protect their loved ones from the threat of prosecution. Those people would be left, as they are now, with no protections against coercion or pressure to end their life and, crucially, with no ability to choose the manner and timing of their death so that they can say goodbye and be remembered by their loved ones as they would wish.

Clearly, some hon. Members do not want those people to have that choice. They are fully entitled to that view. However, if Parliament decides otherwise and gives that choice, it is our responsibility to ensure that it can be exercised without adding constraints and impediments that would serve only to make people’s last days and weeks more traumatic, not less. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am clear that the process must be available as part of the range of services available to patients under the NHS and free at the point of need. It must be for the Secretary of State to make provision for the service in England, and for Ministers in Wales to do the same in Wales if the Senedd agrees. The House of Commons must have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Despite the challenges that it faces, the NHS is a trusted institution staffed by some of the best qualified and skilled health professionals anywhere in the world. Not all of them will want to participate, and it is their absolute right not to, but patients and the wider public should be reassured that assisted dying services would be commissioned and regulated in the same way as other services through the NHS, a system with which they are familiar.

There is another very important reason why I do not believe that voluntary assisted dying should be a service that is separate from the core responsibilities of the NHS. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire and others have described the decision to request an assisted death as a fork in the road. I fundamentally disagree. “Fork in the road” implies that once someone decides which route they will take, that is it: they have chosen their direction of travel. That goes completely against the principles behind the Bill.

The option of an assisted death is just that: it is an option throughout. Right up until the final moment, the person can decide not to exercise that choice. Experience from around the world suggests that consistently 30% to 40% of people do not, but knowing that they have the option has given them the comfort and reassurance that they need to make their final days less stressful and less fearful. It is crucial that the option of a voluntary assisted death remain part of an holistic approach to end-of-life care. If other options—including palliative care or the comfort provided by a hospice or other institution—are working for the individual, they have no need to take it up, but if it remains their clear, settled and informed wish to do so, that is their decision.

My belief that a person requesting an assisted death should be guided through the process, in a health and care environment that they trust and are familiar with, extends to private provision. Other commissioned and regulated services are supplied by a range of providers; the same should apply in this context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said.

NHS trusts and ICBs may use private providers in some circumstances, as they already do. This provides flexibility, which is important, but what matters is that the safeguards and protections in this Bill will apply no matter where the service is supplied. The same requirements on doctors will apply, including the need to prepare reports and send them to the commissioner, and the stipulation that a medical practitioner cannot benefit financially or in any material way from the death of a person and can only receive reasonable remuneration for providing the service. My new clauses 36 and 37 make provision for this. The amendments to the new clauses seek to frustrate or delay that intention, and I cannot support them.

Perhaps it is the Committee that is at a fork in the road. One route leads towards the correction of an injustice that has already lasted too long, and it offers a safe and compassionate choice at the end of life. The other route is to say that we are okay leaving things as they are, that the status quo is defensible and that people do not deserve to be given that choice.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope the hon. Lady does not really think that I or others think the status quo defensible. There are clearly major problems with our palliative care system that we all recognise and want to improve. I would be grateful if she acknowledged that we need to improve palliative care.

On the hon. Lady’s point about remuneration, the Bill specifies that it would not be regarded as illegitimate for doctors to earn reasonable remuneration. What does she think “reasonable” is? How would we designate the appropriate remuneration for doctors? Does she agree that there is nothing in the Bill to stop private providers supplying the service and making money from it?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The approach to reasonable remuneration would be the same as in any other service commissioned by the NHS. There are tariffs for services that doctors provide. That is not for us in Parliament to decide; it would be up to the NHS and the commissioning bodies.

I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with private providers. If so, I suggest that they are probably uncomfortable—which might be surprising, given their politics—with the concept of private healthcare provision per se. Whatever our moral view on that is, we cannot take assisted dying out of the system that we currently have. I think it is really important that the choice is given to terminally ill patients within the framework that we have.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 disagreed to.

Clause 33

Notifications to Chief Medical Officers

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 539, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a registered medical practitioner to notify the Commissioner of the occurrence of an event of a specified description.”

This amendment replaces a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of certain events, including any events specified in regulations, with a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the Commissioner of any event specified in the regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 172, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.

Amendment 540, in clause 33, page 20, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling the Commissioner, by notice, to require persons (or a specified description of persons) to give the Commissioner information (or a specified description of information).”

This amendment confers a power to make regulations enabling the Commissioner to require persons to provide information to the Commissioner.

Amendment 541, in clause 33, page 20, line 18, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 540.

Amendment 542, in clause 33, page 20, line 19, leave out “the notification” and insert

“a notification under subsection (1)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.

Amendment 543, in clause 33, page 20, line 20, leave out second “the” and insert “such a”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.

Amendment 544, in clause 33, page 20, line 22, leave out from “section” to end of line 23 and insert

“‘specified’ means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 539 and 540.

Amendment 173, in clause 33, page 20, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment would mean that any regulations made under this section (Notification to Chief Medical Officers) must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure.

Clause stand part.

New clause 38—Information sharing—

“(1) The Commissioner may disclose information to a person within subsection (3), for the purposes of any function of either of them.

(2) A person within subsection (3) may disclose information to the Commissioner, for the purposes of any function of either of them.

(3) The persons within this subsection are—

(a) the Care Quality Commission;

(b) the General Medical Council;

(c) the General Pharmaceutical Council;

(d) the Nursing and Midwifery Council;

(e) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Commissioner and the Secretary of State may disclose information to each other, for the purposes of—

(a) any function of the Commissioner, or

(b) any function of the Secretary of State relating to the operation of this Act.”

This new clause enables the sharing of information between the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and certain persons.

New clause 39—Obligations of confidence etc—

“(1) A disclosure of information which is required or authorised by or under this Act does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).

This is subject to subsection (2).

(2) This Act does not (and regulations under it may not) require or authorise the disclosure of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure required or authorised by or under this Act would do so, the requirement or authorisation is to be taken into account).

(3) In this section ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”

This new clause provides that disclosures on information required or authorised by or under the Bill do not breach any restrictions on disclosure, but that this is subject to the data protection legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The purpose of these amendments is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the notification process within the context of the Bill and to ensure that the commissioner, who plays a key role in monitoring and reporting, receives the necessary information to fulfil their duties effectively. The amendments will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that require registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner of any events specified. This change is a critical step towards centralising the notification process and will ensure that the commissioner is directly involved in overseeing these events in a manner that supports the broader goals of the Bill.

Under the amendments, the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that require medical practitioners to notify the commissioner and that grant the commissioner the power to request information. They are designed to enhance the commissioner’s ability to effectively monitor the operations of the Bill.

New clauses 38 and 39 are designed to facilitate the proper and secure exchange of information between the commissioner, various regulatory bodies and the Secretary of State in relation to the voluntary assisted dying framework. These provisions are critical to ensuring that the operation of the Bill is transparent, effective and within a secure, legally compliant framework.

New clause 38 seeks to create a structured system for the exchange of information between the commissioner and key bodies involved in healthcare regulation and oversight. This is an essential provision to ensure that all relevant parties can co-operate in the administration of the Bill and that the commissioner has access to the necessary data to fulfil their duties effectively.

New clause 39 addresses a critical issue regarding the disclosure of information under the Bill. It will ensure that information can be shared as required without compromising data protection laws or breaching confidentiality obligations; it seeks to ensure that while the Bill facilitates necessary data sharing, it will not override the existing protections for privacy and confidentiality. That is crucial both for the professionals and for the individuals involved in the processes established by the Bill.

New clauses 38 and 39 will ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner can effectively share information with key bodies while maintaining strict adherence to confidentiality and data protection laws.

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak briefly to amendments 172 and 173, in my name, but amendment 172 will fall if amendment 539 is voted through. The point of amendment 172 is to ensure that the commissioner has adequate data about important events. It turns a “may” into a “must”. It means that the Secretary of State must issue regulations requiring a doctor to notify the chief medical officer, or the commissioner as in all likelihood it will be, of any notifiable event.

I note that amendment 539 would entirely remove subsection (2), which lists what constitutes a notifiable event. Gone, therefore, is the list of the minimum that must be included: the witnessing of a first declaration, the first assessment, the second assessment, the second declaration, a refusal to make a statement and so on. That seemed a reasonable list to me and I am not sure why it should be removed and the decision left to the Secretary of State. It seems to be a watering down of the type of event that must be notified, as the amendments allow much more discretion about what is requested. It seems eminently sensible that a doctor should notify the commissioner of all the various stages of the process. However, that is unlikely to be the case now—with or without my amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will double-check, but I am pretty confident that those reporting mechanisms are covered elsewhere in the Bill. I am very happy to confirm, but I think they are covered in clauses 7 and 8.

[Rebecca Paul]

It would be reassuring if that were the case because such data can be very useful. By making sure we get into the routine of providing it, it is there if we ever need it.

Amendment 173 provides that any regulations under the clause must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure. In the interests of using our time well, I will not repeat the arguments that were made last week on this. However, if amendment 539 is accepted, the Bill will again defer a lot to ministerial powers and non-binding guidance and codes of practice. Under the negative procedure, Parliament is reduced to watching rather than properly participating in the decision-making process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 172 and 173, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, and against amendment 539, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 33 currently provides that the Health Secretary “may” bring forward regulations to require a doctor to report any notifiable event to the chief medical officer. That would be either the CMO for England or the CMO for Wales, according to where the assisted death takes place. The clause lists those notifiable events, such as the first declaration, the two statements by the doctors, including when they refuse to make such a statement, and the final statement that follows the person’s death. The weakness in the clause as originally written is its use of the word “may”. It should not be optional for the Secretary of State to make such regulations. Amendment 539 retains that weakness, while adding what I view as a new problem. The new weakness is that the amendment removes the requirement for doctors to notify the CMO of the events. Instead, it specifies that they should notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

By all means let us have doctors reporting these events to the commissioner, but they should still be required to report the events to the chief medical officers too. There are at least two good reasons for that. First, the chief medical officers are extremely experienced, senior doctors. They and their staff have the ability to look at this kind of data from a medical and especially a public health perspective. The VAD commissioner will come from a legal, not medical background. They will have other abilities but they will not look at this through the lens that a senior doctor would. Secondly, it cannot be good governance that the only person who must see the data is the commissioner—the official who runs the assisted dying system and who appoints all the panel members.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope that my hon. Friend can take some reassurance from amendment 455, which says that

“the Commissioner must consult… the Chief Medical Officer for England”

and

“the Chief Medical Officer for Wales”

when making a report.

[Naz Shah]

I will come on to that point.

As I have said previously, this Bill will not just create a VAD commissioner, but give them the power to assess their own work. That means it is much less likely they will critically assess the data for any signs of a major problem. We all suffer from unconscious bias, even the very senior legal officials who will be eligible to become VAD commissioners. If the data were sent to the chief medical officers as well as the commissioner, that would mean two sets of officials with different perspectives and fields of expertise looking for problems. We would have a much better chance of locating problems earlier that way.

Amendment 172 would change the clause so that the Health Secretary must bring forward such regulations. As things stand, regulations brought forward under the clause would be subject to the negative procedure, which, as all hon. Members know, considerably reduces the amount of parliamentary scrutiny they receive.

Amendment 173 would make regulations under the clause subject to the affirmative procedure. I honestly try to see the arguments for and against each amendment, but I have real difficulty in seeing what the arguments against these two might be. Clearly, notifiable events are important information that must be collected nationally for a transparent assisted dying system. Equally, they need to be governed by regulations so that all doctors participating in the scheme have a clear picture of their responsibilities.

Finally, on such an important matter, Parliament should be required to vote to accept such regulations, as that will increase the scrutiny from both this House and the other place. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley drew my attention to her amendment, which says the commissioner must consult the chief medical officer. However, it does not specify whether the consultation should include data or if it is the beginning of the process; those things are not stated on the face of the Bill. That leaves it open to interpretation, which is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. I thank her for tabling those two very sensible amendments and I urge hon. Members to vote for them. From my perspective, amendment 539 weakens the Bill and we should vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

Monitoring by Chief Medical Officers

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 382, in clause 34, page 20, line 26, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.

This amendment provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 383, in clause 34, page 20, line 29, leave out “the relevant national authority” and insert “an appropriate national authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 384, in clause 34, page 20, line 30, leave out “relevant national” and insert “appropriate national”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 385, in clause 34, page 20, line 31, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 449, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, after “to” insert

“Parliament or Senedd Cymru as appropriate and”.

This amendment requires the relevant Chief Medical Officer to submit an annual report to Parliament or the Senedd Cymru and the relevant national authority.

Amendment 386, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, leave out “the relevant” and insert “each appropriate”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 387, in clause 34, page 20, line 34, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer’s” and insert “annual”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 389, in clause 34, page 21, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert—

“(3) An appropriate national authority must—

(a) publish any report received under this section,

(b) prepare and publish a response to any such report, and

(c) lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru (as the case may be) a copy of the report and response.

(4) In this section “appropriate national authority” means the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 382 and the consequential amendments provide for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 to be carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The commissioner will submit an annual report to the appropriate national authority—Parliament or the Senedd—on the operation of the Act, as set out in amendment 389. The appropriate national authority must publish any report received under this section, prepare and publish a response to any such report, and lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru a copy of the report and the response. I think the Committee is in agreement about the importance of reporting and monitoring under the Act, and I hope it can support these amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate that the amendments are necessary for the new design of the Bill, but I want to express my concern that they establish an assisted dying regime that is left to monitor itself. When the person who facilitates these profound decisions is also the one who reviews them, it threatens not just the integrity of the system but the safety and trust of those it serves. Without labouring the point, other jurisdictions have significant problems with reporting and the information being the responsibility of those delivering the service. In Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal since 1997, the state relies on doctors to self-report compliance. We are left trusting that every form filled in will tell the whole story.

Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General of Victoria, is very concerned about the operation of the legislation in Australia. He has highlighted how the voluntary assisted dying review board, which is a similar arrangement to the commission proposed here, relies on paperwork from the doctors themselves, with no routine audits or real-time checks. He pointed out that a tiny group of doctors—in fact, only 10—handled 55% of all cases in 2023-24, according to the review board’s data. Many of those doctors were advocates for the legalisation of the programme. I am concerned about the implications of a system that effectively trusts doctors to provide information without any proper review.

Lastly, with all due respect to whoever comes in as commissioner, the replacement of the chief medical officer with the commissioner represents a downgrading of the scrutiny the Bill offers. We know that the commissioner is likely to be a retired judge, which is a very distinguished position, but they will not be somebody with the serious political status of the chief medical officer. The CMO role is equivalent to a permanent secretary. I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley acknowledges that our current CMO is probably the best-known public servant in the country. It is very significant that we are proposing to downgrade the role fulfilled by the CMO. I do not think a retired High Court judge will have the same status.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was quite keen on a judge, but now maybe less so. I hope he is reassured by amendment 455, which requires the commissioner to consult the chief medical officer. That shows really clear intent for the post to have judicial and medical expertise and oversight.

[Danny Kruger]

I am keen on actual judges who sit in court with the full authority of a judge, not a retired judge sitting at the head of a quango very far away from the decisions made about assisted dying. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I appreciate the fact that there will be a duty to consult. We want to have as much input from the CMO as possible in the administration of the service.

--- Later in debate ---

Under amendment 455, the report must also include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and other persons specified in the regulations. Therefore, the changed approach from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley seems to, from the Government’s point of view, accomplish much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park is seeking to do. That is all I propose to say, but I hope that it has been of assistance to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the risk of repeating what has already been said before by various members of the Committee, amendments 455 and 456 are important amendments that further strengthen the oversight, transparency and implementation of the Bill, particularly in relation to protected characteristics.

Clause 34(1) already establishes the requirement of an annual report to be produced, but amendment 455 goes further by mandating that this report must also include detailed information about how the Bill applies to individuals with protected characteristics. Those are the groups identified in the Equality Act 2010, such as by age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion and others. Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the report will not only cover those protected characteristics, but any other group that may be specified in regulations set by the Secretary of State, which provides the ability to adapt and to ensure that the Bill is applied fairly to all groups as societal needs and considerations evolve.

Amendment 455 also ensures that the commissioner consults relevant stakeholders when preparing the annual report, specifically, the chief medical officers for both England and Wales, along with representatives of groups advocating for those with protected characteristics. This collaborative approach ensures that the report is as comprehensive as possible. Of course, the report will also be supported by additional details and regulations, the doctors’ reports, and the review of the Bill as set out in clause 35. As such, I am confident that the reporting mechanisms set up under these provisions provide a thorough oversight for the assisted dying process.

Amendment 450 negatived.

Amendments made: 387, in clause 34, page 20, line 34, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer’s” and insert “annual”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 220, in clause 34, page 20, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g);

(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e);”

Amendment 388, in clause 34, page 20, line 40, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) a panel has refused to grant a certificate of eligibility;”. —(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment proposed: 451, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—

“(e) there were complications in the procedure.

(2A) The Commissioner’s report must include analysis of the following—

(a) information about the patients’ diagnosis/es;

(b) information about the patients’ prognosis;

(c) any instances where concerns were raised about the patients’ capacity;

(d) any instances where concerns raised about the patient being coerced;

(e) any concerns raised by the multi-disciplinary panel;

(f) any concerns raised by family members;

(g) and demographic data on the patients, including socioeconomic data, information on protected characteristics; and

(h) data obtained from the recording of the consultation.” —(Naz Shah.)

This amendment would require reporting under section 34 to include various information on diagnoses, complications, concerns about capacity and other matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will be brief.

I am in favour of retaining the Bill as it stands. The key thing is the interplay between this clause and clause 42, on commencement. I would have been minded to support changes to the reporting period had the Bill been commencing within two years, as clause 42 as drafted sets out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that will change the backstop of the commencement period to four years. The timescales set out in this clause are from the day on which the Bill is passed. It makes no sense to carry out a formal review of the operation of the legislation before the services have come into being. We will have a four-year timetable, potentially, for the backstop of the commencement. Throughout that time, the annual reporting requirement of the commissioner, who will undoubtedly have been appointed in advance, will kick in.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, which speaks to some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I strongly support the new clause, and the establishment of a disability advisory board to report annually on the effect on disabled people of not just the Act but the implementation. Picking up any concerns or views about its effect on people with disabilities would happen in a timely manner under new clause 35.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I will come to in due course, but the thing that we need to analyse is the operation of the Bill. That will not start with the passing of the Bill; it will start with its commencement. It is important that we join the dots between the relevant clauses.

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is exactly right. For those reasons, I think we need to retain the full five-year review period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined, the review of the Act by the Secretary of State will be in addition to the annual reporting from the commissioner and, if we accept new clause 35, in addition to annual reports from the disability advisory board. Clearly, over the course of multiple amendments, we will have strengthened the reporting requirements both in advance of and post implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 526 would impose a duty on a Minister to arrange for the report on the review of the operation of the Act to be debated by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 14 sitting days, beginning with the day after the laying of the report. That goes further than laying the report before Parliament as currently required under clause 35. I hope those observations were helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly to this clause, because some of what I say will be covered in our debate on other clauses. The title of the clause is “Review of this Act”, so it is important to be clear about what we are reviewing. I am sure members of the Committee agree that it is the operation of the Act that needs to be considered. As such, it is important to join the dots between the relevant clauses of the Bill and differentiate between the passing of this legislation and the commencement of its provisions.

I have tabled amendment 548 to clause 42, “Commencement”, which provides that the commencement of the provisions of the Act could be up to four years beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. I sincerely hope it is sooner than that, but I have tabled the amendment none the less. New clause 40 provides that, until the Act is implemented, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the first anniversary of the Act being passed, with subsequent reports being laid every six months up to full implementation. It is a comprehensive reporting system, and it is really important to look at what we are reporting on. The reality is that the commencement of the Act could be between two and four years, so a five-year review makes sense.

Amendment 452 negatived.

Amendment proposed: 493, in clause 35, page 21, line 31, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.—(Daniel Francis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

This group of amendments relates to clause 35, which sets out requirements for review of the Act. Amendments 491 and 492 aim to broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the review.

Amendment 491 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate care services, as well as health services, to persons with palliative care needs. Care services play an important role in supporting terminally ill individuals with care needs in settings such as care homes and in the community. However, it is not clear what the term “care services” would cover. It could include, for example, unpaid care, private or local authority-funded care, or non-statutory care services such as befriending.

Amendment 492 would extend the people the assessment will cover to include those receiving end-of-life care as well as those with palliative care needs. The Committee may find it helpful to note that, while palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for individuals with life-limiting illnesses at any stage, end-of-life care specifically addresses the needs of an individual in their final year. The Committee may also find it helpful to note that, under clause 2(1) as amended by the Committee, a person is considered terminally ill if their death, in consequence of an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment, can reasonably be expected within six months.

Clause 35(1) requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Act, prepare a report on that review, and publish and lay the report before Parliament. The Secretary of State is required to do that during a period of 12 months beginning after the period of five years from the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 35(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of what the report must set out. Amendment 397 would require that the report includes an assessment of the impact of the legislation on people with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of the Act in relation to them. The amendment does not include a definition of “learning disabilities” and so may introduce legal uncertainty as to what must be included in the report. However, I note that there is an existing definition of “learning disability” in section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983, which could be considered to mitigate this uncertainty if the amendment were agreed to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendments 491 and 492 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate services by including care services and end-of-life care. It is not clear what “care services” would cover, and I am concerned about the broadness of that term and the lack of a clear definition, so I am not minded to support amendment 491.

Amendment 492 would expand the population that the assessment will cover to include persons with end-of-life care needs alongside those with palliative care needs. That makes sense and, given the purpose of the Bill, the amendment seems sensible, so I am happy to support it.

On amendment 397, which would require consideration of the impact on people with learning disabilities, we have had this conversation several times with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. As I have said previously, he makes a very valid point with reference to this cohort of people, and as such I am minded to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 546, in clause 42, page 24, line 18, after “Sections” insert:

“(Reporting on implementation of Act),”.

This amendment is consequential on NC40.

New clause 20—Annual impact assessment of assisted dying—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the effect of this Act.

(2) The report in subsection 1 must include an analysis the effect of this Act on people’s access to—

(a) healthcare,

(b) palliative care, and

(c) assisted dying.

(3) For the purposes of subsection 2, the analysis must include an examination of people’s access by reference to—

(a) protected characteristics, and

(b) socioeconomic status.

(4) The first annual report is to be laid before each House on their first sitting day after one calendar year from the passing of this Act.

(5) Each subsequent report is to be laid on the first sitting day one calendar year after the preceding report.”

New clause 28—12-month Assessment of this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake, prepare and publish an assessment, within 12 months from the day this Act is passed, of—

(a) the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives;

(b) the extent to which the Act is likely to meet that aim;

(c) an assessment of the state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs and the implications of this Act on those services;

(d) any emerging concerns relating to the current or future operation of the Act; and

(e) steps the Secretary of State plans to take in response to those concerns.

(2) The assessment in paragraph (1)(c) must include the quality and distribution of appropriate health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs, including—

(a) pain and symptom management;

(b) psychological support for those persons and their families; and

(c) information about palliative care and how to access it.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay any report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to undertake an assessment of the Act within 12 months, including an assessment of any concerns and services to persons receiving palliative and end of life care and the implications of the Act on those services.

New clause 40—Reporting on implementation of Act—

“(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish, and lay before Parliament, a report about—

(a) progress made in that period in connection with the implementation of this Act, and

(b) the Secretary of State’s plans for implementing the Act in subsequent reporting periods (including the expected timetable for implementation).

(2) For the purposes of this section the reporting periods are—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;

(b) each subsequent period of 6 months (subject to subsection (3)).

(3) The sixth reporting period under subsection (2)(b) is the last reporting period.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make, publish and lay before Parliament a report about implementation of the Act resulting from this Bill. The first report must be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the first anniversary of the Act being passed, with subsequent reports being made in respect of the six subsequent 6 month periods.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak to my new clause 40 and my amendment 546. The purpose of new clause 40 is to establish a requirement for regular reports on the implementation of the Act until all its provisions are fully implemented. This will ensure continuous oversight and transparency regarding the progress of the Act’s implementation.

The new clause will mandate the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and progress of the Act as soon as reasonably practicable after each reporting period. The reports must include the progress made on implementing the Act during the reporting period, and the Secretary of State’s plans for implementing the Act in future periods, including an expected timetable for further implementation. The first report must be issued one year after the Act is passed, and subsequent reports are due every six months. The sixth and final report marks the conclusion of the reporting period.

The new clause is linked to amendment 546, which will ensure that new clause 40 will be brought into force immediately upon the passing of the Bill, making the reporting requirements active right from the start. This provision is crucial for maintaining accountability and for ensuring that Parliament is regularly updated on the progress of the Act’s implementation and that any necessary adjustments or future plans are communicated effectively. It provides a structured timeline to track the implementation of the Act until all provisions are fully operational.

[Daniel Francis]

I wish to speak to my new clause 28, which was suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. The new clause is more substantive than my two amendments in the previous group. It would require an additional assessment within 12 months of the Bill being passed, with the Secretary of State required to undertake an assessment of

“the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives”.

Crucially, the assessment would incorporate an assessment of the current state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs, and the implications of the Act for those services, including for the quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care services. The new clause seeks to mirror the requirement in clause 35 for an assessment after five years of the Bill passing, only within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to provide a benchmark against which the later assessment can be measured.

There has been much discussion about the relationship between the Bill and palliative and end-of-life care services. Above all, the intention behind this new clause is to ensure that, outside the proceedings of the Committee and the progress of the Bill, that relationship is properly and thoughtfully considered by Government. We have heard a range of expert evidence throughout the Committee that, despite the very high quality of palliative and end-of-life care in this country and the phenomenal efforts of the clinicians and organisations delivering it, access to that vital care is all too often inequitable and subject to a postcode lottery.

As Marie Curie stated in its written evidence, if the fundamental aim of the Bill is to offer terminally ill people choice at the end of life,

“genuine choice…cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”.

The sad reality is that in too many cases today people are not able to make that choice. There will most likely be consensus among us that action is needed to fix end-of-life care to ensure that all dying people can have choice and dignity, even if we disagree on whether that is most appropriately achieved on the face of the Bill or through other mechanisms.

There has also been a great deal of debate and discussion about what the impact of introducing assisted dying might be on palliative care services and reference to what might have happened in other jurisdictions. We should not leave this to chance and fool ourselves that improved access to palliative and end-of-life care would be an inevitability as a result of the debate or level of public interest in the Bill. By requiring an immediate assessment of the state of health and care services available to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs through new clause 28, we can create a framework for accountability within this legislation and a firmer basis on which future policy and spending decisions on palliative care can be made.

It may be useful to recall that we have not had a national strategy for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. While I appreciate that there are major policy milestones approaching, such as the 10-year health plan, that could help to address that gap, my hope is that an assessment of the quality and availability of palliative and end-of-life care services undertaken as part of the Bill can sit helpfully alongside other plans and strategies.

When introducing the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley chose to highlight that she had

“included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1013.]

At this point, the Bill requires such an assessment only after five years. I hope that she and other hon. Members will agree that it would be beneficial to support this new clause so that such an assessment may be undertaken within 12 months, in support of the ambition of seeing improvements in palliative and end-of-life care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As drafted, clause 36 sets out individuals who are disqualified from acting as a witness or proxy. Amendment 454 would add to that list and exclude anyone from acting as a witness or proxy who would not themselves have capacity to request to end to their own life under the Bill. This would require there to be an assessment of the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies. There is no corresponding obligation placed on medical practitioners in the Bill to assess the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies, so it is not clear how a person would request, and be provided with, the required capacity assessment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is right that there are some exclusions for witnesses and proxies, as set out in the Bill, but although I have no doubt that amendment 454 comes from a good place, it seems both excessive and impractical to conduct a capacity assessment on witnesses and proxies. They are not the patient who is seeking assistance under the Bill, and the role they have is functional and will be overseen by the co-ordinating doctor. The panel can also ask to hear from them if they wish. As such, I cannot support the amendment.

[Daniel Francis]

I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. Clause 38 is a form of insurance policy that enables the Secretary of State to respond to the evolving landscape and changes that may take place, including in the implementation period—for example, to respond to issues relating to data, substances, training or the setting up of the system. It ensures that there is a safety net or fall-back position to enable the Government to make changes that might be required.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Am I correct in thinking that this is a standard procedure, and it relates to very minor amendments, such as consequential and transitional provisions? It would be used not for any big changes to the Bill but for small amendments, and it would be burdensome to put such small changes before Parliament every time they needed to be made.

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is indeed my understanding. These would be minor changes, rather than major, fundamental changes to the Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is a good description of it. The wording used in the clause is “consequential and transitional provision”, which is another way of saying exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has described.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Regulations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 39, page 23, line 4, after “purposes” insert “, and

(b) incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”

This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision. This is a minor amendment, and it is a standard but vital measure to ensure the legislation works effectively and cohesively.

[Sarah Olney]

The clause, when amended by amendment 545, which we will vote on shortly, brings into stark relief how much of the Bill is to be left to regulations and how little say MPs will eventually get over it. When it comes to voting on Third Reading, MPs will have little certainty on how the Bill will actually operate—so much is to be taken on trust. If, through the gaps and grey areas, people come to harm, that will be on Parliament for failing to address these issues while we had the chance.

Let us consider all the powers that the Bill creates. Clause 5 creates a power to determine what goes into the first declaration, subject to the requirements of amendment 418. Clauses 5, 8 and 19 create powers to determine the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners, with no minimum floor, and we do not even know who will ultimately decide the training—that, too, is to be left to regulations under amendment 186. Clause 6 creates powers to determine the forms of proof of identity, with no requirement for those to be photographic or to prove residency.

Clauses 7, 13 and 21 create powers to determine the statements, declarations and reports required from the doctors and the applicant. Clause 11 creates powers to make regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they have died, are ill or are otherwise unable or unwilling. Clause 15 creates a new power to determine who can be a proxy. Clause 20 creates a power for the approval of drugs and substances to end people’s lives. Clause 28 creates a power to determine the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved lethal substances —the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has called this purely administrative. Clause 29 creates a power to make regulations relating to the registration, certification and recording of deaths. Clause 30 creates a power to issue codes of practice that practitioners must simply “have regard to”.

Clause 32 will create an extraordinarily broad Henry VIII power, as we are completely in the dark as to how the assistance will actually be provided. Clause 33 creates a power to determine which events should be notified to the commissioner and how to enable the exchange of information. That is all to be decided by the Secretary of State, with the detail removed from the Bill.

All those things are to be subject to the negative procedure, except the training and qualification requirement for the first and second doctor, the codes of conduct, and the power for the Secretary of State to arrange for delivery of assisted dying. When a statutory instrument is made through the negative procedure, there is no need for a vote. The only exception, by convention, is when the Leader of the Opposition asks for one, but they understandably would not do so on a conscience issue. In practice, Parliament will never get a say on these matters. Is the Committee content with that?

Even on affirmative statutory instruments, Parliament’s say is limited to a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended. Suppose that the Secretary of State published a code of practice on the assessment of capacity that MPs felt did not take sufficient account of mental health conditions. They would be faced with the option to vote for it despite its inadequacy, or to vote against it and risk creating a position where there are no codes of practice at all. That is an impossible position to place parliamentarians in, yet that is what the Bill does. It is a massive blank cheque to the Executive.

I say to Government Members, who I know have great faith in the Health Secretary, that according to the Interpretation Act 1978, “Secretary of State” means any Secretary of State. The powers will not necessarily be exercised by the Health Secretary; they could be exercised by another Secretary of State. Indeed, under the doctrine of ministerial delegation, they could be delegated to another Minister who is not a Secretary of State.

I make these points to illustrate that there is an issue of principle that cannot be waved away on the basis that we think someone sensible will exercise the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny matters, and I very much regret that the Bill avoids it through these wide regulation-making powers.

--- Later in debate ---

On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Reigate, I reiterate that the breadth of the range of meanings captured by “coercion” and “pressure” would, in the Government’s view, encompass what I think she is concerned about. Undue influence would be caught by those terms in practice.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is fair to say that we have had a very valuable discussion on the matters relating to these amendments. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for the considerable amount of hard work that she has put into researching these issues. As always, her approach has been extremely thorough and diligent.

I have been on my own journey regarding the need or otherwise to place definitions in the Bill, but having undertaken the valuable discussions we have had through this Committee—I think this genuinely has been the Committee at its best—along with the expert legal input and advice that my hon. Friend and the Committee have had, I think we are in the right place to enable the courts to ensure that the law is as expansive as possible and to ensure that we do not create a scenario in which certain behaviours from those with mal-intent in relation to the Bill are excluded from its scope. I agree that we should allow the courts to do their job with the broadest possible powers to prosecute offences under the Bill. I echo my hon. Friend’s comments to the Minister about the need for the inclusion of details about these issues in guidance and codes of practice, but I thank the Committee for an extremely useful and productive discussion.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful discussion that we have had from Members on both sides of the Committee Room. I am pleased and reassured that we have that discussion on record, so that those looking at the work that we have done in this Committee will understand the depths and levels at which we have thought about these important concepts in this space and the extent to which we have challenged and checked Ministers in making sure that they understand our concern about these provisions being properly put in place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for her important input, which I hope will be reflected in the training.

I am glad that we have come this far and that we have a level of unanimity across both sides of the Committee Room. That is a nice point to reach as the Committee comes towards the end of its journey, and it reflects the essence and the intention that were so evident on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 392, in clause 40, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“‘first assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 7;

‘first declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 5;”.

This is a drafting change.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”.

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 393, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, at end insert—

“‘second assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 8;

‘second declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 13;”.

This is a drafting change.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments are drafting changes, but they are important drafting changes, in that they are about the definitions of first assessment, first declaration, second assessment, second declaration and preliminary discussion. They are small but important changes and I hope that the Committee will support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments—including all three in this group—have been mutually agreed by her and the Government with the aim of ensuring the workability of the Bill. I shall provide a brief technical, factual explanation and rationale for the amendments.

Amendment 392 would add the meaning of “first assessment” and “first declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “first assessment” and “first declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently.

Amendment 393 would insert the meaning of “second assessment” and “second declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “second assessment” and “second declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently.

I turn to amendment 424. Clause 4(3) states:

“Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, the registered medical practitioner may…conduct a preliminary discussion about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided.”

Clause 4(4), as amended, sets out that where a practitioner conducts a preliminary discussion, they must explain and discuss certain matters with the person concerned. These are:

“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis;

(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it;

(c) all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support”.

The preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about these matters. Amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the list of definitions in clause 40 to ensure that all references to a “preliminary discussion” in the Bill are interpreted in line with the description of the discussion in clause 4(3).

Amendment 392 agreed to.

Amendments made: 226, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 37.

The amendment is consequential on Amendment 545.

Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 393, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, at end insert—

“‘second assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 8;

“‘second declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 13;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This is a drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendment is linked to clauses 5 and 8, which define who can and cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. According to the clauses, a person who benefits financially from the death of the person cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. As the Bill stands, clause 40(4) provides that a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially, or in any other material way, from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services in accordance with the Bill.

The amendment may broaden what is meant by “benefiting financially”, so that its effect may be to prohibit a person from being a co-ordinating or independent doctor if their remuneration is greater for applications that are accepted than for ones that are rejected. However, as drafted, it is not possible to determine the effect of the amendment with certainty, so further amending is likely to be required at a later stage should the Committee accept the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will not test the patience of the Committee by repeating the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central and for Stroud and, indeed, of the Minister. I am comfortable that subsection (4) as it stands is perfectly acceptable on the remuneration that a doctor can receive. I will not support the amendment.

[Danny Kruger]

I must conclude from that that the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and the Minister would be content with an arrangement whereby a doctor was paid more for accepting an application and processing it, and for referring a patient—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

Suddenly the debate is occurring. I am happy to give way.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That absolutely is not what we have said.

[Danny Kruger]

In opposing my amendment, the hon. Member is declaring herself content with the text of the clause as it is. The text as drafted would allow a doctor to be paid more, the more applications that they receive, process and refer on. That might not be, in her mind, how the system should work—I would be grateful to know how the system should work, because it is not in the Bill or in the amendments. We have a very vague arrangement here, whereby a private provider would be enabled to deliver assisted dying—indeed, a profit-making organisation would be able to manage the entire process from beginning to end, even referring a second assessment to another part of their own company.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

In a moment. The potential—as would happen in other parts of genuine healthcare—is that the more work people do, the more money they get. My concern is that that induces a dangerous incentive into the system. Having a global fee paid to a provider who managed the service would be much safer. The crucial point is that we prevent people being paid for approving and enabling assisted deaths, and that is what my amendment would do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

That is the purpose of my amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is making some interesting points, but they are not related to the point of this amendment, which talks about the doctor being given more money for approving the request. That is not quite the same point that he is making.

[Danny Kruger]

I imagine that a doctor who works for the non-profit service I am envisioning would be paid a salary and do their work, but would not be paid on a per-client basis—they would not be paid a tariff for the number of people they passed through the system, let alone for the different chunks of the process. People need to be paid, but they should not be paid on a per-client basis, because that would introduce dangerous incentives into the system.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment is consequential on NC40.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 547, in clause 42, page 24, line 19, at end insert—

“(1A) Section (Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner), except subsection (4) of that section, and Schedule (The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner) come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment provides that the clause and Schedule relating to the Commissioner, except subsection (4) of the clause, come into force one year after Royal Assent.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 531, in clause 42, page 24, line 21, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (2) bringing sections 1 or 24 into force unless they have previously laid before Parliament a report containing an analysis of—

(a) the readiness of services to provide assistance and related functions of this Act, and

(b) training that has been provided under the provisions of this Act.”

Amendment 488, in clause 42, page 24, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations which bring section 18 into force unless the condition in subsection (3A) is met.

(3A) The condition is that a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to each House of Parliament that sets out—

(a) that, in their opinion, all regulations necessary for the effective provision of assistance have been made under this Act; and

(b) a list of the regulations that have been made for the purposes of paragraph (a).”

This amendment would prevent the Minister from making a commencement order for section 18 without a statement first being made to each House of Parliament stating that all necessary regulations for provision of assistance have been made and setting out what those regulations are.

Amendment 489, in clause 42, page 24, line 22, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would remove the automatic coming into force of provisions under the Act two years after it is passed.

Amendment 548, in clause 42, page 24, line 23, leave out “2” and insert “4”.

This amendment provides that any provision of the Bill not brought fully into force before the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed will come into force at the end of that period.

Amendment 536, in clause 42, page 24, line 23, leave out “2” and insert “5”.

This amendment would increase the time period given between the passing of the Act and the automatic coming into force of provisions under the Act to five years.

Amendment 535, in clause 42, page 24, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to Wales.

(3B) In relation to Wales, the provisions of this Act not brought into force by subsection (1) come into force on such day or days as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint (and such regulations may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru).”

Amendment 490, in clause 42, page 24, line 30, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (2) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(8) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft of an instrument under subsection (7) unless they have already laid before each House of Parliament a report providing an analysis of the expected efficacy of services and functions performed under this Act.

(9) The report under subsection (8) must, in particular, set out—

(a) the extent to which the Act is expected to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives;

(b) an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate health services to persons with palliative care needs, including—

(i) pain and symptom management;

(ii) psychological support for those persons and their families;

(iii) information about palliative care and how to access it;

(c) any concerns with the operation of this Act which have been raised; and

(d) the Secretary of State’s response to any such concerns and planned actions to be taken in response to those concerns.”

This amendment would change the procedure for commencement orders to the affirmative procedure and require a report to have been laid providing an analysis of the likely impact of the Act.

Clause stand part.

Clause 43 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 548 is not one that I had hoped to table, but I recognise that it is necessary. It is important to be clear about what it says and what it does not say. It creates a four-year backstop, meaning that the provisions of the Act must be implemented within four years of Royal Assent. What it does not say is that it cannot be implemented sooner than that, and I hope and believe that it can. A backstop is not a deadline.

Hon. Members who have been in this House longer than I have will be very familiar with the idea of a backstop. In this, as in previous contexts, it is not intended as the desired outcome but a form of protection. The Bill as originally drafted stated that, if all its provisions had not been brought fully into force after two years, they would come into force at the end of that period. Under the amendment, that period would now be four years.

I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed about extending the commencement period, and I know I am not alone. When I started work on the Bill, I thought, “Gosh, two years to implement it. That is a long time to leave the law uncorrected. How many terminally ill people will face the trauma and expense of travelling to Switzerland or feel they have no alternative but to take their own life or suffer a deeply traumatic death as a result of their illness in that time? How many more families will face the possibility of a police investigation, or have the happy memories of their loved ones tainted by their final weeks or days, due to the impact of their terminal illness?” That sat very heavily with me.

But I thought then, and still think now, that however difficult it feels at times, this is not a process that should be rushed. It is more important to do this properly than to do it quickly. I am pleased that the Committee has improved the Bill in many ways, and added extra safeguards to what was already the strongest assisted dying legislation in the world—in particular, with the setting up of a new judge-led voluntary assisted dying commission, with multidisciplinary panels to look at every application. Inevitably this will take longer to implement than simply referring cases to the High Court, an institution that already exists.

The reporting and monitoring mechanisms and infra-structure, along with the comprehensive training programme that we have rightly discussed at length in Committee, will take time to put together. It is clearly important to dedicate the necessary time to implementing these safeguards, but I also know the upset and disappointment that many people will feel about a potentially longer commencement period, so it is with some reluctance that I ask the Committee to support the amendment.

As I have said, four years is very much a backstop, not a target. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, I for one—I know that I will not be alone—will hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that its provisions are put in place as quickly as is practicable and safe to do so. To that end, amendment 547 would ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be appointed within 12 months of the Bill passing. New clause 40, as previously debated, would confer a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at that 12-month point, and every six months thereafter, until it has been fully implemented. Those are important steps to show progress and to demonstrate accountability and transparency.

At lunchtime today I met a group of people—many terminally ill themselves—representing thousands of others who are looking to this Parliament to finally offer them or their loved ones the choice and dignity of a better death. I know, because they have told me, that they are disappointed by this change. I said to them that I would not be making it if I had not been persuaded that it was necessary, but I also said that I will do everything I can to not keep them waiting a moment longer than we absolutely have to. I hope that the Committee can support the amendments.

[Sarah Olney]

I rise to speak to my amendments 531 and 535 and to amendment 490 in the name of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

I welcome what the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just said about needing more time to get this right. As I said earlier, there is still so much that has been left to secondary legislation. I regard that as unsatisfactory in itself, but the fact that we are going to take time to get it right will surely go some way to mitigating some concerns.

I have heard raised around the estate on a number of occasions today the concern that the four-year gap between passing the legislation and implementing it will take us right up to the next general election. I have to say that I share those reservations, even though I am not a member of the party of government, about how the general election campaign will intersect with the implementation of this legislation. I share people’s fears that this whole process will get enmeshed in party politics, which we have hitherto been able to avoid in the Committee, but nevertheless could create a real danger for successful implementation.

I did think that the auto-commencement of this Bill after two years was a little bit reckless. The extension to four years at least permits some potential improvement in palliative care—to re-ignite the spirit of consensus, as that is something that we all want to see—but an NHS already grappling with long waiting lists and staffing shortages could buckle under the added burden of implementing a complex new framework leading to rushed or inconsistent application. An automatic commencement of the new laws, regardless of the situation in the NHS, could leave patients and healthcare workers unsupported.

It is important is that, before the moment comes—whenever that is—Parliament should be fully informed as to how the service will be provided and the strength of other provisions, so that MPs can be confident that those choosing to end their lives through this service are given a fair choice and are not being pushed down a single pathway. We must also have confidence that the medical professionals and panels involved have received adequate training.

Amendment 531 would ensure that at least we go into this with our eyes open and that shortcomings are flagged if not addressed. It would provide that the critical provisions of the Bill, without which assisted dying cannot lawfully operate, do not come into force until a report is made setting out the readiness of services to be provided under the legislation and that the training has been provided. Similarly, amendment 488, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, mandates a statement from both Houses that all necessary regulations are in place. This would prevent a premature roll-out without clear rules. These steps would not halt progress; they would ensure we are ready to proceed.

Amendment 490, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, does two important things. First, it requires that if the Secretary of State wants to commence before the auto-commencement deadline, they must publish a report covering the same matters covered by the report under clause 35. This would not be a new requirement, but would instead bring it forward. Crucially, that report would include details about the provision and availability of palliative care services in England and Wales.

Secondly, amendment 490—this is it goes further than my amendment 531 and amendment 488—requires that regulations bringing the Act into force prior to the auto-commencement deadline use the affirmative procedure: in other words, that there will be a vote in Parliament. It stands to reason that if the Secretary of State wants to go quicker than the four-year deadline, then Parliament ought to be able to consider whether all necessary preparations have been done and to refuse early commencement if that is not the case.

Amendments 488, 490 and 531 would not interfere with the auto-commencement point in four years’ time: when four years is reached the whole scheme will come into force. Those amendments would not prevent that, but they would achieve greater oversight and accountability if the Secretary of State decided to commence early. I hope that even if the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not minded to accept striking out the auto-commencement provisions, she will still accept these amendments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member makes some very fair points, but I think they will be covered by my new clause 40.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful for that intervention, but the crucial point is the vote in Parliament, so that MPs get not only an opportunity to consider whether sufficient progress has been made—as per new clause 40—but a vote to confirm that they are content for the legislation to proceed.

[Sarah Olney]

I refer to my earlier comments: there are few enough opportunities for MPs to have any further control over how this legislation is going to be implemented. I do not think that it is asking too much to want a further opportunity to be mandated, and not left—dare I say it—to the vagaries of the Backbench Business Committee. There are Opposition days, but this is cross-party, conscience issue. I can speak only for my own party, but I think there are a number of other issues that the Opposition would want to use those debates to address. Taken together, these amendments would ensure that Parliament is properly informed if the Secretary of State decided to commence the scheme before the four-year auto-commencement deadline.

I want to address how the Bill will be implemented in Wales. On 23 October 2024, in anticipation of the Bill being published, Senedd Cymru debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to

“a) support the principles of assisted dying; and

b) support Westminster parliament to introduce a compassionate assisted dying law in England and Wales.”

The motion was defeated 19 to 26. Among those who voted against were a number of Welsh Government Ministers, including First Minister Eluned Morgan, and I believe that in three political parties—Labour, Plaid and the Conservatives—there was a majority against. In that context—as Professor Emyr Lewis, who gave evidence to the Committee, has stated—it would be constitutionally wrong to pass the Bill without the consent of the Welsh Senedd. He believes that this is different from other instances where legislation has been passed by Westminster against the will of Wales:

“This is not the equivalent, for instance, of trying to re-base the UK’s internal markets following the chaos of Brexit. When the UK Parliament passed Acts ignoring refusal of consent from Cardiff or Edinburgh, it did so in what were considered to be the interests of the economic coherence of the UK. This Bill, however, is a different sort of creature. It is a Bill which would bring about a profound change in the law relating to life and death, where there are strongly held (and expressed) moral, religious and cultural views against as well as in favour. How can it be constitutionally appropriate for the UK Parliament to pass such a Bill for Wales, when the Senedd has indicated its opposition by democratic vote after a thorough debate?”

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope the hon. Member can acknowledge that the motion voted on in the Senedd was very different from the legislation before this Parliament. I hope that I can reassure her, as I have previously, that I am in contact with the Senedd and will be meeting Welsh Ministers. New clause 37 will hopefully also provide some reassurance on issues around devolution.

[Sarah Olney]

I again refer to what I said earlier: I fear this is another example where, instead of debating and agreeing these points in Committee or elsewhere in Parliament, we are delegating these matters to be decided elsewhere by some other people, not in the legislation that we are debating and voting on.

I reiterate that the Senedd has already made its view clear. It may not have been a binding vote. It may not have been voting on this specific piece of legislation. However, I think the will of the Senedd is clear: they do not want an assisted dying Bill imposed upon them, and that is what the evidence of Professor Emyr Lewis told us.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I think that is a very inaccurate representation of the vote that took place in the Senedd.

[Sarah Olney]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that.

The complicating factor here is that the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, but health is, as is safeguarding. One possibility is to seek to respect devolution strictly, by either changing the law or giving the power to the Secretary of State to change the law in respect of what is reserved, while giving to the Welsh Ministers the powers in respect of what is devolved. The problem is that the Bill does not quite do that, even with the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Those amendments fail to properly identify what is and what is not devolved; instead, they kick the can down the road.

Future litigation might be required to figure out the precise boundaries. For example, regulation of health professionals is a reserved matter, but adult safeguarding is a devolved matter, so is the training of those health professionals on spotting coercive control a reserved or a devolved matter? The Bill does not answer that question. The solution therefore carries a real risk. If Wales decides that it does not want assisted dying and therefore does not provide it on its NHS, and the Welsh Ministers decide not to set up proper training and regulatory programmes in respect of the safeguarding issues raised, the position in Wales will be that it is decriminalised, so the service can be provided by private providers charging a fee and not necessarily properly trained in safeguarding. That is not a sustainable middle ground, so it would naturally pressure Wales to move towards commissioning such services itself.

In other words, the Bill either respects devolution at the risk of creating a legal limbo, or it puts pressure on Wales to catch up with England, neither of which are desirable. Another alternative is to take away any choice that Wales might have on the matter entirely, and have the law apply in Wales in exactly the same way it does in England, including when it comes to the actual delivery of services. That would avoid the legal limbo problem, but at the cost of acting in a way that is constitutionally quite wrong.

That brings us to the solution that Professor Lewis proposed in his blog:

“How then might the Bill be amended to respect the Senedd’s vote on the matter of principle? One straightforward way would be to provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?”

That is what I seek to do through my amendment.

I can foresee three objections. First, it might be said that the criminal law is a reserved matter and therefore Parliament ought not to refrain from legislating for Wales or have different commencement arrangements for the criminal law in England compared with Wales, but Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wants. By the same reasoning, Parliament should never grant a temporary power to a devolved legislature to legislate on matters that are normally reserved, yet Parliament does do that.

The second objection might be that England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, and that there should not be a difference in the criminal law between them, but this misunderstands that, as a result of the devolution settlement, there are already differences in the criminal law of England and Wales. For example, in our law there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, which means that parents smacking their children would not be committing a criminal offence. Although the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, child welfare is and, using those powers on child welfare, the Senedd voted to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement in Wales. That means that there is a difference in the criminal law of England and Wales. A position whereby assisting suicide was partially decriminalised in England but fully criminalised in Wales would not be an oddity. There is no principle of our constitution that says that the criminal law must be the same on both sides of the border.

The key issue is that the decriminalisation of assisted suicide, which the Bill will bring about, is not a stand-alone measure. What we are introducing is not something like the Swiss criminal code, for example, which does not criminalise assisted suicide when the person acted for non-selfish motives. Rather, it is a decriminalisation of assisted suicide that is contingent with complying with a detailed healthcare regulatory scheme, which is an issue that is devolved to Wales.

Finally, it might be objected that this might create difficult cross-border issues. As Professor Lewis put it in his blog,

“that would be true also if, for instance, the Scottish Bill did not become law. Far more difficult cross-border issues were successfully accommodated in the context of legislation, also involving profound ethical considerations, when the National Assembly for Wales (as the Senedd was then called) changed the law on organ donations.”

I accept that such a situation might require constitutional amendments at subsequent stages, but these could easily be made by the Government on Report.

Ultimately, when one looks at it in detail, having a different commencement provision for Wales is the only practical way of respecting the vote of the Senedd while not running the risk of creating a legal limbo. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the supplementary written evidence of Professor Lewis, in which he commends my amendment 535.

Regardless of where we stand on assisted dying, we should respect democracy. The people of Wales, through their elected representatives—acting as they should, as representatives—have voted against assisted dying. We should respect that choice and not impose it on them, in whole or in part, without their consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me permission to remove my jacket. It is greatly appreciated. I assume that other hon. Gentlemen in the room are also able to do the same, should they wish to do so.

New clause 9 would make it a criminal offence for a person to advertise their services as a co-ordinating doctor or an independent doctor under the Bill. The offence would apply to a person who, in the course of a business, publishes or causes publication of an advertisement for the services of acting as a co-ordinating doctor or an independent doctor under the Bill, or who prints, devises or distributes an advertisement or causes that for the promotion of such services. The offence is wide-ranging and could include, for example, a person who unknowingly transmitted such advertising via electronic communications or social media.

Should the new clause be passed, further work may be needed to determine how the offence would be enforced. I also note that there is no provision for any defence in relation to the offences—for example, where a person responds to inquiries.

Restrictions on advertising always need careful consideration and drafting, given the potential unintended consequences and European convention on human rights impacts—particularly in relation to article 10, on freedom of speech. That is particularly so when breaches of the restrictions are made a criminal offence, as is the case here. However, article 10 is a qualified right, which means that interference can be justified provided that it is in accordance with the law, pursuant of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society, so although the new clause could engage article 10, it may not violate it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

New clause 9 specifically relates to the advertising of assisted dying services. I fully understand the intent behind it—to prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services. I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for bringing the issue to the Committee’s attention. However, there are important nuances with the new clause as drafted that need to be addressed, to avoid criminalising individuals or organisations simply for providing information that is essential for those seeking access to those services. I have looked into this issue because it is an important point for the Committee to consider.

Section 4 of the Cancer Act 1939, a useful reference point, bans advertising for cancer treatment. It prevents the advertising of any treatments, regardless of whether they are evidence-based. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central mentioned, the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 prohibits the advertising of surrogacy services. Both Acts are aimed at protecting individuals from misleading or unethical commercial activity.

The situation with assisted dying is more complex. The new clause is not about advertising unregulated or unproven services; it is actually about doctors who are offering a legal, regulated service to those who meet the criteria. I therefore have the same concerns as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley.

Subsection (3) states:

“Distributing an advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission.”

That is particularly concerning because it could criminalise doctors involved in the process of simply communicating with their patients, such as by sending an email, if they were seen as participating in the distribution of an advert.

The intent is clear: we must prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services. However, we must ensure that the new clause does not inadvertently hinder access to legal services by criminalising the actions of doctors who are simply making themselves available in accordance with the law. We must not create barriers for those who need the service, nor should we penalise doctors for providing legitimate, legal services. I recognise the need to prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services, especially to avoid commercial exploitation or coercion, but it is essential that we carefully calibrate the clause to ensure that it targets unethical advertising practices without sweeping in legitimate and necessary actions that help people find the care they need in a manner that is lawful and respectful of their autonomy. As such, I am very happy to work with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Reigate, to look at how we can produce something to that effect ahead of Report.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank everyone for all the very constructive points they made. I completely agree with the points raised; I think some work is needed, but I am pleased that the hon. Member for Spen Valley and other Committee members are willing to work with me and the tabling Member—my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—to get this measure into a place where it does what we want it to do, without capturing things that we do not want it to capture. I completely take the point on the concern about emails; that is not what we want to capture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for tabling the new clause. She has made extremely valuable points, as she has throughout the Committee, about the importance of respect for the Welsh language. I think she is absolutely right.

As the Minister said, there are some issues with the drafting, as to what the implications would be, not just in Wales but in England. It is my understanding that Ministers in the Senedd are happy to meet following the Committee’s proceedings, and I am happy to discuss these issues with them as part of our conversations.

It is important that the right hon. Member’s thoughts have been put on record, and we need to look at what we can put in the Bill ahead of Report to address her concerns.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I honestly feel that the legislation as it stands—the Welsh Language Act 1993, and the 2011 and 2018 standards in relation to health—is not sufficient for what we are endeavouring to do. People have a right to use their first language, and it is of some regret to me that the only two languages protected by law in England and Wales are English and Welsh. I would be happy if there were more, but they are the only two I can discuss, and Welsh is obviously very close to my heart. On this last day, I feel my obligation to push the issue to a vote; otherwise, we will default to legislation that is not sufficient for what we are endeavouring to do.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

New clause 30 would introduce a duty on medical or other healthcare professionals involved in a person’s care, including assessing doctors, should they receive an indication that the person is seeking assistance to end their own life contemporaneously with one of their family members.

The duty has two parts. First, the medical or other healthcare professional who receives the indication must notify the person’s co-ordinating doctor and a registered medical practitioner from the person’s GP practice. Secondly, if an assessing doctor receives notification of that fact, they must refer that person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry and a registered social worker, and must take account of their opinion. The assessing doctor must share that opinion with the other assessing doctor.

In the absence of definitions, issues could arise as to who is covered by the term “family member” and as to the meaning of “contemporaneously”. The additional referrals would add to the length of the application process.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for tabling the new clause. I have some concerns around the broad definition of “family member”. I also feel that it would be potentially excessive if there were a coincidental situation in which, tragically, two members of the same family were terminally ill. I worry about the extra burden it would place on them of going through an even more rigorous process when they had both been assessed under the thorough regime of the Bill, including the multidisciplinary panel. However, the point is worth discussing and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised it.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate the points made by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. “Family member” is a relatively non-specific description, but I think the thrust of the new clause is clear. Clearly, it is directed particularly at couples.

I fully understand why my hon. Friend does not want people to have to go through a huge number of extra layers; I have said at length several times that I do not want people at the end of their life to go through an awful period of sitting in endless meetings, assessments or courtrooms. However, I reiterate that although they would be relatively exceptional, there will be situations in which coercion and other sorts of pressure are potentially at play. I agree that that may be an incredibly rare scenario and that two people may just want to go through the stages towards the end of life together, but extra checks may need to happen at some point to ensure absolutely that there is nothing untoward such as other sorts of pressure or coercion, rare as that might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about the amazing work of the staff and the Clerks. May I say thank you very much to everybody?

New clause 34 seeks to prevent assisted dying under the Bill from being considered a medical treatment. As drafted, the Bill is silent on the question whether the provision of assistance under the Bill can be considered a treatment. If accepted, the amendment may be interpreted to mean that the term “medical treatment” in any other legislation may not be interpreted to include assisted dying. The term “medical treatment” is used in many different contexts across the statute book and has different meanings according to context. The clause is therefore likely to produce unpredictable and potentially unintended effects.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We are entering deeply philosophical territory, which is welcome and has happened several times before during the Committee’s proceedings. As ever, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised some interesting points, but my view is that his new clause should not be in the Bill. We all have our views on how we frame assisted dying and choice at the end of life, but I do not think that assisted dying should be defined—or rather not defined—in this way in the Bill.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I associate myself with the comments made by others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, about the fantastic work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford with regard to this new clause and other amendments. I also associate myself with the comments of the Minister for Care and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about the fantastic work done throughout this Committee by our Chairs, the Clerks of the House and indeed all the staff of the House, and I pay tribute to colleagues who have served on this Committee; it has been hard work.

When I reflect on the criticism—sometimes, sadly, very personal—directed at me when we were putting the Committee together, I remember people saying that it would just be people who all agreed or people who would rush the Bill through. But here we are at this hour. I do not think this has been rushed through; I think we have taken an extremely thorough approach. “No amendments will be made” was the charge. We have made lots of amendments, and we will put the Bill back to the House in an even stronger position than it was in on Second Reading. I pay tribute to everybody involved in the process.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 35 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 6 disagreed to.

New Schedule 1

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner

“Status

1 (1) The Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.

(2) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as—

(a) the servant or agent of the Crown, or

(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.

(3) The Commissioner’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

General powers

2 The Commissioner may do anything the Commissioner considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, the Commissioner’s functions.

Deputy Commissioner

3 (1) The Prime Minister must appoint a person to be the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (the ‘Deputy Commissioner’).

(2) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of—

(a) the Supreme Court,

(b) the Court of Appeal, or

(c) the High Court.

(3) The Commissioner may delegate any of the Commissioner’s functions to the Deputy Commissioner, to the extent and on the terms that the Commissioner determines.

(4) The delegation of a function under sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent the Commissioner from exercising that function.

(5) The functions of the Commissioner are to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner if—

(a) there is a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner, or

(b) the Commissioner is for any reason unable or unwilling to act.

Appointment and tenure of office

4 (1) A person holds and vacates office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment as determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(2) An appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is to be for a term not exceeding five years.

(3) A person may not be appointed as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if a relevant appointment of them has been made on two occasions.

‘Relevant appointment’ here means appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.

(4) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may resign by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—

(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office, or

(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.

Remuneration

5 The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, the person holding office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner—

(a) remuneration;

(b) allowances;

(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.

Staff: appointed by Commissioner

6 (1) The Commissioner may appoint staff.

(2) Staff are to be appointed on terms and conditions determined by the Commissioner.

(3) The terms and conditions on which a member of staff is appointed may provide for the Commissioner to pay to or in respect of the member of staff—

(a) remuneration;

(b) allowances;

(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.

(4) In making appointments under this paragraph, the Commissioner must have regard to the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

(5) The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 does not require insurance to be effected by the Commissioner.

Staff: secondment to Commissioner

7 (1) The Commissioner may make arrangements for persons to be seconded to the Commissioner to serve as members of the Commissioner's staff.

(2) The arrangements may include provision for payments by the Commissioner to the person with whom the arrangements are made or directly to seconded staff (or both).

(3) A period of secondment to the Commissioner does not affect the continuity of a person's employment with the employer from whose service he or she is seconded.

Staff: general

8 (1) Before appointing staff under paragraph 6 or making arrangements under paragraph 7(1), the Commissioner must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State as to the Commissioner’s policies on—

(a) the number of staff to be appointed or seconded;

(b) payments to be made to or in respect of staff;

(c) the terms and conditions on which staff are to be appointed or seconded.

(2) A function of the Commissioner may be carried out by any of the Commissioner’s staff to the extent authorised by the Commissioner (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)).

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels) of making appointments to the list of persons eligible to be panel members;

(b) the Commissioner’s function of determining applications for reconsideration under section (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility).

Financial and other assistance from the Secretary of State

9 (1) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make payments to the Commissioner of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) give such financial assistance to the Commissioner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) provide staff in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner under paragraph 7;

(b) provide premises, facilities or other assistance to the Commissioner.

Accounts

10 (1) The Commissioner must—

(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and

(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in the form specified by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Commissioner must send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) before the end of August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, or

(b) on or before such earlier date after the end of that year as the Treasury may direct.

(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—

(a) examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts, and

(b) send a copy of the certified statement and the report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each document received under sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(5) In this paragraph, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the date on which the Commissioner is established and ending with the second 31 March following that date, and

(b) each successive period of 12 months.

Application of seal and proof of documents

11 (1) The application of the Commissioner's seal is to be authenticated by the signature of—

(a) the Commissioner, or

(b) a person who has been authorised by the Commissioner for that purpose (whether generally or specially).

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the Commissioner’s seal or signed on the Commissioner’s behalf —

(a) is to be received in evidence, and

(b) is to be treated as duly executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is shown.

Public Records Act 1958

12 In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (bodies whose records are public records), at the appropriate place insert—

‘The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.’

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

13 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying person from membership of House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—

‘The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner or the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.’

Freedom of Information Act 2000

14 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities for the purposes of the Act), at the appropriate place insert—

‘The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.’

Equality Act 2010

15 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the end of the group of entries for bodies whose functions relate to health, social care and social security insert—

‘The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.’”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This new Schedule contains provision about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is an honour and a privilege to open the debate on Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It has been a long journey to get here, and I do not underestimate the significance of this day. It is not often that we are asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity, but with great privilege in this job comes great responsibility, and never more so than at a time like this.

Benjamin Franklin told us that

“in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

In this House we debate the latter incessantly, but here and in the country as a whole discussing death is something that we tend to shy away from, yet it will come to us all and to all those we love. We all have our own experiences of death, loss and grief. There are good deaths and bad deaths. I, like many, have experienced both.

I appreciate that, for some colleagues, the journey to this point has been a difficult one. I want to pay tribute to the way in which the overwhelming majority of Members have approached the subject. Second Reading back in November was quite rightly seen as an example of Parliament at its best. Contributions from across the Chamber were incredibly powerful, the atmosphere was respectful, and people listened with care. I hope that we will see the same today.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your team along with the fantastic Clerks and procedural experts who have ensured that parliamentary protocols have been followed and have guided us through the intricacies of what can be a complex parliamentary process—one that is steeped in tradition, but not always easy to follow. Of course, process is important, but it is also important to remember that we are not voting on the merits of parliamentary procedure; we are voting on an issue that matters deeply to our constituents. Indeed, the issue before us is very personal for many people—so many of our constituents, but many of us as well. It is an issue that transcends party politics. I thank colleagues from across the House who have shared their very personal stories with me.

I am grateful to all colleagues who have studied the detail of the Bill. It is essential that we come to a decision based on the content of what it actually says. I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that the legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of—a cogent, workable Bill that has one simple thread running through it: the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it.

I will not go into the amendments in detail, as I know that is not the purpose of this debate, but whether by adding further safeguards and protections for patients through additional training around coercive control, the addition of specialist expertise through the inclusion of multidisciplinary panels, widening the provision for professionals to opt out of the assisted dying process, providing additional employment protections, or prohibiting the advertising of assisted dying, cross-party working has strengthened the Bill.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What level of concern does it give her that, between Second Reading and today, a growing canon of professionals and their independent professional bodies have urged great caution about this Bill, not on the principle, but because they are opposed to the details of this Bill and believe it should be defeated?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think what he is saying is that people have got different views, and they do have different views; we have different views in this House, and different people in different professions have different views. Every royal college has a neutral position on assisted dying because of that.

I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of, and the many safeguards in this Bill ensure that only terminally ill patients who are eligible under the strict criteria and want to access assisted dying can do so.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I felt disturbed by quite a lot of the emails that I received from constituents—some of them who are my friends and people I like—implying that we here are either too stupid or careless to care for the most vulnerable. Is it not true that we all do care, whatever decision we make today, and that we have to continue to educate people and tell them what this Bill is about?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and she is absolutely right; the detail does matter. That is why I am so grateful to colleagues who have engaged in the detail. We know that there are different views within the public, and we have to take on board the concerns of vulnerable groups—that is why the safeguards are so important—but I would also say that there is no one more vulnerable than someone who is dying.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am just going to make some progress.

Patients must have

“an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed by treatment”

and a person is not considered to be terminally ill only because they have a disability or a mental disorder. These clear, strict criteria, plus the multiple capacity assessments, exclude possible serious mental health disorders such as anorexia.

I was also very pleased to support the change advocated for by Marie Curie and Hospice UK, which would ensure an assessment of palliative and end-of-life care as part of the first report on the Act. We know from other countries, in no small part due to the 14-month inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee, that palliative care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days. It should not be an either/or for dying people, and we need to channel our energies into supporting all options for terminally ill people.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As she knows, the leading experts in palliative care have come out to oppose the Bill, and they point to the fact that hospices are underfunded and do not have the same ability to serve patients. I therefore gently question whether we are in a position today to make a judgment that patients truly would have a choice at the end of life.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank him for his intervention, but I would say, as I have said previously, that people working in palliative care have a mixed range of views on this subject. I have met with palliative care doctors, and some are very supportive of a change in the law because of the suffering they have seen.

[Richard Burgon]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that particular point?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am just going to make some progress, if I may. But, as I was saying, it is an either/or decision for us today: either we vote for the safe, effective, workable reform contained in this Bill, or we say that the status quo is acceptable.

Over recent months, I have heard hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances, along with many terminally ill people themselves. I spent some time with some of these families yesterday. They are real people with real stories and they deserve to be heard.

Adil’s terminally ill father took his own life by buying drugs on the dark web. It was his third attempt, and Adil found him in a truly desperate state. He and his sister will never get over that night, nor the police investigation that followed. Katie waved her mum off as she made the lonely and costly journey to Switzerland, where she had a peaceful and dignified death. But the family had no chance to say a proper goodbye and her dad made the journey home grieving and alone.

Others have had to watch their loved ones die harrowing deaths despite receiving excellent end-of-life care. Warwick’s wife Ann, suffering from peritoneal cancer, had the maximum dose of sedative, but it was not enough to stop the choking and suffocation, and she begged him to help her put an end to her suffering. But he did not want her last memory to be of him stood over her with a pillow. There are many, many more such stories.

Perhaps most importantly, I have spoken to terminally ill people themselves. We have spent a lot of time talking about them, but not always with them. Pamela and Sophie both have terminal breast cancer, and they shared their stories yesterday. Pamela is a proud Christian who just wants to have choice when her time comes. Sophie, who is allergic to opioids, wants to ensure that her beautiful daughter has nothing but happy memories of their time together. Not supporting the Bill today is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo. It fills me with despair to think that MPs could be here in another 10 years’ time hearing the same stories.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very kind. I came into this House supporting the principle of assisted dying, and I thought very carefully before voting against the Bill on Second Reading. There are differing views, but I want to ask my hon. Friend, before MPs put their name not to the principle of assisted dying but to this Bill specifically, why the vast majority of primary care doctors, geriatricians and groups representing people with disabilities, eating disorders and domestic violence are all opposed not to the principle but to this Bill specifically. Some people who are supportive of the principle of assisted dying do not support this specific Bill; can my hon. Friend explain their opposition?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I think we have covered that point already. These are not homogeneous groups of people; they have different views and opinions.

If we look at the inconsistencies in the current law, it just does not make sense. If someone with a terminal illness voluntarily stops eating and drinking, it is legal for them to starve themselves to death. A competent patient has the right to refuse foods and fluids even if they will die. The exercising of that right is sometimes proposed as an alternative to assisted dying. I suppose it could be argued that starving oneself to death is one way of taking control at the end of life, but it is a deeply traumatic experience for the person and their loved ones, and there are people here today who have direct experience of that.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress.

We have a system in which it legal for someone to starve themselves to death, which can take days or weeks, but where it is not legal for someone to seek assistance from a doctor to take an approved substance themselves to end their pain or suffering and take back control in their dying days. It is also legal in this country for someone to discharge themselves from medical care or refuse life-sustaining treatment such as ventilation, CPR or antibiotics, as long as they have the mental capacity to do so and are making the decision of their own accord, without harassment from anyone else. Colleagues might think that is fine, and I agree, but there is no requirement for two doctors, a psychiatrist, and a social worker, and there is no lawyer or judge. It is legal, yet what is being proposed in this Bill, with so many more safeguards and protections, is not. It simply does not make sense.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not going to take any more interventions, because lots of people want to speak.

Then there are the criminal offences that the Bill introduces—none of which exist now—including life imprisonment for anyone who induces another person to take the approved substance, and 14 years in prison for coercion, dishonesty or pressure. It is a robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world, and it is far safer and significantly more compassionate than what we have now.

If we look internationally, there are clear, well-established, safe and compassionate assisted dying laws in existence. On Tuesday I joined doctors from Australia who used three key words repeatedly: choice, control and relief. Dr Greg Mewett has 20 years of experience as a GP and 22 years as a palliative care physician, and he spoke about the thorough approach that he has taken to ensure safety and efficacy of the assisted dying process. Perhaps the most stand-out quote from that session came from Dr Jacky Davis, chair of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, who said that by introducing assisted dying,

“no more people will die but far fewer people will suffer”.

This is not a choice between living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die. I fully appreciate that some colleagues would never vote for any version of this Bill, and I am respectful of that despite disagreeing with them. However, I say to colleagues who are supportive of a change in the law but are hesitant about whether now is the time, that if we do not vote for a change in the law today, we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish.

There will be stories of suicide attempts, post-traumatic stress disorder, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations, and everything else we have all heard of in recent months. As the Commission on Assisted Dying said in 2011, 14 years ago:

“The current legal status of assisted dying [in the UK] is inadequate and incoherent. It outsources a healthcare issue abroad, especially to Dignitas, instead of the Government and Parliament assuming responsibility.”

That was 14 years ago, and we are in exactly the same position today. Things have got to change.

As the Government’s impact assessment states, the Bill will improve equity of choice, ensuring that terminally ill adults from all socioeconomic backgrounds can access end-of-life options within a regulated and safe framework.

I will draw my comments to a close. There are essentially two ways in which we can look at the situation we are in. We can look at it through a legal lens. As legislators, we have a duty to change the law where it is failing, and when the last four Directors of Public Prosecutions tell us that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to listen. We need scrutiny before people die, not after. Most importantly, there is the human lens, which is how I approach most things. Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have the right—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish shortly.

Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough. Of course, giving people the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose.

Today, we can vote with either our hearts or with our heads, but either way, we should end up in the same Lobby. On a compassionate, human level, and as responsible lawmakers, we should support this desperately needed reform, which is rigorous, practical and safe, and which is rooted in the principles that should underpin any legislation: compassion, justice and human dignity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with.

I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naz Shah]

I will make some progress.

Hundreds of eating disorder experts, doctors, lawyers, charities, family members and people with lived experience urged Parliament to close this loophole and support amendment 38. As a Committee, we failed to heed their warning. We have now learned that the one remaining amendment that could protect people with eating disorders will not even be voted on.

Our responsibility is to make the Bill safe. We know what happens when politicians think they know better than the experts. Let us make it clear: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Pathologists, palliative care doctors, the British Geriatrics Society, almost every eating disorder charity and almost every disabled people’s group do not support this Bill. That is not because they do not believe in the principle; they are warning us about the dangers of this Bill, and of getting this wrong.

Our job is not to be activists—to fight until our last breath for the principle, whatever shape or form it is delivered in. Of course we believe in causes—that is why each and every one of us is in Parliament—but we legislators must listen to the experts, heed the evidence, scrutinise and debate the ideas that are before us, and deliver for our constituents laws that are safe, workable and effective. We have a proud history; the likes of Florence Nightingale—the lady with the lamp—broke every barrier possible to heal the wounded, provide care for the vulnerable and reduce the chance of death. Those are the principles that our great NHS was founded on. We must ask ourselves whether those fundamental principles will still be intact if the Bill passes. Will they be there to protect those who face a postcode lottery in healthcare and palliative care, the most vulnerable, and those who have faced the greatest hardships in life and feel like a burden? Will those principles be there to protect those who feel like giving up, but whom we could help back up and push towards a better life? Instead, we will be giving them a way to give up, even if they could have survived.

This is the question for all Members: what is the margin of error that we are willing to risk today when it comes to something as serious as death? I urge Members to vote against this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not.

Those are the words that will give powers to Ministers and to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her discretion with the most cursory of oversight from this place.

Let us be absolutely clear on what we are choosing to do. Let us be absolutely clear that it is on us—it is our responsibility—to think not just for those who have options and power, and those who will not be intimidated, but for those who will be. We must think of the weak and vulnerable, to whom the Mother of the House referred, and for the communities in our country who already do not trust the health service, reject vaccination, choose not to come early for cancer diagnoses and already have the worst health outcomes. We need to think of them. Choosing to make that gap greater is not just enabling someone to access care, but actively rejecting others in our community who should seek care but will not because of the fear this will raise in their hearts. We need to think really hard about that.

To those who say that there will be no change and that, “This is it; there can be no further change,” I say that the closest legal equivalent to this legislation is the Canadian legislation. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament. The closest equivalent to the national health service is the Canadian health system. I therefore give you—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has spoken for many hours; I am speaking for five minutes.

The experience of Roger Foley, a Canadian living with a degenerative condition, warns us:

“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying. Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested…that I should end my life.”

Sadly, this is not the only example we have heard of this; we have also heard of veterans with post-traumatic stress order and others with limiting conditions. Today, sadly, we have even said that those who merely feel pressure are allowed to access this service.

Members have a real choice today. When that first 18 or 19-year-old—that first individual—goes and asks for this, it will be we who made that decision. It will be on our consciences. It will be a decision that has fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state in a way that can never be reversed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (b) to new clause 13, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may only approve a device under subsection (5) if the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has approved the device for that purpose.

(5B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.”

This amendment requires that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency be consulted before making regulations and that medical devices can only be approved for self-administration if they have been approved by the MHRA.

Amendment (c) to new clause 13, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (5) must forbid the use of any device used for the self-administration of a gas.”

This requires the Secretary of State to forbid the use of medical devices which cause death by the administration of a gas.

Amendment (a) to new clause 13, leave out subsection (7).

This removes the power to make regulations that may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (known as Henry VIII power) from this new clause.

New clause 14—Prohibition on advertising—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting—

(a) the publication, printing, distribution or designing (anywhere) of advertisements whose purpose or effect is to promote a voluntary assisted dying service;

(b) causing the publication, printing, distribution or designing of such advertisements.

(2) The regulations may contain exceptions (for example, for the provision of certain information to users or providers of services).

(3) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.

(4) But regulations under this section—

(a) may not amend this Act, and

(b) must provide that any offence created by the regulations is punishable with a fine.

(5) In this section “voluntary assisted dying service” means—

(a) any service for or in connection with the provision of assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or

(b) any other service provided for the purposes of any of sections 5 to 27.”

This clause imposes a duty to make regulations prohibiting advertisements to promote services relating to voluntary assisted dying under the Bill.

Amendment (b) to new clause 14, in subsection (2), leave out from “exceptions” to the end of subsection (3) and insert—

“( ) for the following—

communication made in reply to a particular request by an individual for information about a voluntary assisted dying service;

(b) communication which is—

(i) intended for health professionals or providers of voluntary assisted dying services, and

(ii) made in a manner and form unlikely to be seen by potential service users.

(3) Regulations under this section may make provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament, but may not amend this Act or the Suicide Act 1961.”

This amendment would limit the exceptions that can be created to the advertising ban set out in NC14 and also provides that regulations cannot amend the Suicide Act 1961, which includes the offence of assisting and encouraging suicide.

Amendment (a) to new clause 14, leave out subsection (3).

This removes the power to make regulations that may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (known as Henry VIII power) from this new clause.

New clause 15—Investigation of deaths etc—

“(1) In section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (duty to investigate certain deaths), after subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) In this Chapter a reference to an “unnatural death” does not include a death caused by the self-administration by the deceased of an approved substance, within the meaning of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, that was provided to the deceased in accordance with that Act.”

(2) In section 20 of that Act (medical certificate of cause of death), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make, in respect of cases where assistance was provided or purportedly provided to the deceased under the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025—

(a) such provision that is similar to, or that corresponds to, provision mentioned in subsection (1) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) such further provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4B) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that in cases where the cause of death appears, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person issuing a certificate under the regulations, to be the self-administration by the deceased of an approved substance (within the meaning of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025) that was provided to the deceased in accordance with that Act, the certificate must—

(a) state the cause of death to be “assisted death”, and

(b) contain a record of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill within the meaning of that Act.”

(3) In Schedule 1 to that Act (suspension of investigations etc), in the definition in paragraph 1(6) of “homicide offence”, after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) an offence under section 31, 32 or 33 of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025;”.”

This new clause provides that references in Chapter 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (investigations into deaths) to unnatural deaths do not include deaths caused by self-administration of approved substances provided in accordance with the Bill. It makes offences under clauses 31 to 33 “homicide offences” for the purposes of that Act. It also amends the powers in that Act in respect of medical certificates of cause of death.

Amendment (a) to new clause 15, in subsection (1), leave out from “section” to “(medical” in subsection (2) and insert

“20 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”

This amendment ensures that deaths from assisted dying will still fall within the coroner’s duty to investigate deaths under section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

New clause 20—Guidance about operation of Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to the operation of this Act.

(2) The guidance need not (but may) relate to matters about which the Welsh Ministers may issue guidance under subsection (4) (“Welsh devolved matters”).

(3) Before issuing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Chief Medical Officer for England,

(b) the Chief Medical Officer for Wales,

(c) such persons with learning disabilities and other persons who have protected characteristics as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

(d) such persons appearing to represent providers of health or care services, including providers of palliative or end of life care, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

(e) if any part of the guidance relates to Welsh devolved matters, the Welsh Ministers, and

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Welsh Ministers may issue guidance relating to the operation of this Act in Wales, but the guidance must only be about matters within devolved competence.

(5) For this purpose, a matter is “within devolved competence” if provision about it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.

(6) Before issuing guidance under subsection (4), the Welsh Ministers must consult—

(a) the Chief Medical Officer for Wales,

(b) the Secretary of State,

(c) such persons with learning disabilities and other persons who have protected characteristics as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate,

(d) such persons appearing to represent providers of health or care services, including providers of palliative or end of life care, as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate, and

(e) such other persons as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.

(7) When preparing guidance under this section, an appropriate national authority must have regard to the need to provide practical and accessible information, advice and guidance to—

(a) persons (including persons with learning disabilities) requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives;

(b) the next of kin and families of such persons;

(c) the general public.

(8) An appropriate national authority must publish any guidance issued under this section.

(9) In this section—

“appropriate national authority” means the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers;

“protected characteristics” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 (see section 4 of that Act).”

This new clause (which is intended to replace clause 37) makes provision about guidance relating to the operation of the Bill.

New clause 21—Provision about the Welsh language—

“(1) In this section “relevant person” means a person in Wales who wishes to be provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act.

(2) Subsection (3) applies where the Welsh Ministers make regulations under section 39 (voluntary assisted dying services: Wales).

(3) Regulations under that section must make such provision as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that, where a relevant person indicates that they wish to communicate in Welsh, all reasonable steps are taken to secure that—

(a) communications made by a person providing a voluntary assisted dying service to the relevant person are in Welsh, and

(b) any report about the first or second assessment of the relevant person is in Welsh.

(4) Where a relevant person informs the Commissioner that they wish to communicate in Welsh, the Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to secure that—

(a) communications made by the Commissioner to the relevant person are in Welsh,

(b) each member of the panel to which the relevant person’s case is referred speaks Welsh, and

(c) communications made by that panel to the relevant person are in Welsh,

and any certificate of eligibility issued by that panel must be in Welsh.

(5) Regulations under section 7, 9, 10, 17 or 26 that specify the form of—

(a) a first or second declaration,

(b) a report about the first or second assessment of a person, or

(c) a final statement,

must make provision for the forms to be in Welsh (as well as in English).

(6) Before making regulations in pursuance of subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.

(7) In this section—

“panel” and “referred” have the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2;

“voluntary assisted dying service” has the meaning given by section 38.”

This new clause (which is intended to replace Clause 47) makes provision about the use of the Welsh language.

New clause 4—Monitoring by Chief Medical Officer—

“(1) The relevant Chief Medical Officer must—

(a) monitor the operation of the Act, including compliance with its provisions and any regulations or code of practice made under it,

(b) investigate, and report to the appropriate national authority on, any matter connected with the operation of the Act which the relevant national authority refers to the relevant Chief Medical Officer, and

(c) submit an annual report to the appropriate national authority on the operation of the Act.

(2) The relevant Chief Medical Officer’s report must include information about the occasions when—

(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 9(2)(a) to (h),

(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 10(2)(a) to (e),

(c) a panel has refused to grant a certificate of eligibility,

(d) the coordinating doctor has refused to make a statement under section 17(6).

(3) An annual report must include information about the application of the Act in relation to—

(a) persons who have protected characteristics, and

(b) any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) When preparing an annual report, the relevant Chief Medical Officer must consult—

(a) The Commissioner, and

(b) such persons appearing to the relevant Chief Medical Officer to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics as the relevant Chief Medical Officer considers appropriate.

(5) An appropriate national authority must—

(a) publish any report received under this section,

(b) prepare and publish a response to any such report, and

(c) lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru (as the case may be) a copy of the report and response.

(6) In this section “appropriate national authority” means the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.

(7) In this section “protected characteristics” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 (see section 4 of that Act).

(8) In this section “relevant Chief Medical Officer” has the meaning given by section 37(5).”

This new clause would require the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions set out in the Bill to be carried out by the Chief Medical Officer instead of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

New clause 5—Implications for civil procedure rules and probate proceedings—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report setting out the implications of this Act on—

(a) the civil procedure rules, and

(b) probate proceedings.

(2) The report in subsection (1) must include an analysis of likely consequential changes to the civil procedure rules and probate proceedings in consequence of this Act.”

New clause 6—Board to consult communities—

“(1) The Commissioner must, within six months of being appointed under this Act, appoint a consultation board.

(2) The role of the board is to consult communities in order to report to the Commissioner on the impact of the Act on those communities.

(3) The Board must report to the Commissioner and the Secretary of State every 12 months from its appointment on its findings.

(4) The communities that the Board must consult include people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities.

(5) The Board may consult other groups in addition to those listed in subsection (4) as it considers appropriate.

(6) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of receiving a report under subsection (3), lay that report before both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 19—Collection of statistics—

“(1) The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner must ensure that the statistics specified in Schedule (Statistics to be collected) are collected.

(2) The Commissioner must publish a yearly report setting out those statistics.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, vary the contents of Schedule (Statistics to be collected).”

Amendment 13, in clause 4, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) A person may not be appointed under subsection (2) unless the appointment has the consent of the Health and Social Care Select Committee of the House of Commons.

(2B) In this section, references to the Health and Social Care Committee shall—

(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (b)) to be references to the Committee by its new name;

(b) if the functions of that Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to matters relating to the provision of assistance under this Act become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, be taken to be references to the committee by whom the functions for the time being exercisable.”

Amendment 96, in clause 25, page 21, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) A drug or other substance may only be approved under this Act if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug (or other substance) or combination of drugs (or other substances), is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.”

This amendment ensures that drugs can only be approved if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that the drug is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.

Amendment 97, page 21, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) A drug or other substance may only be approved under this Act if it has been licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.”

This amendment ensures that drugs can only be approved for this purpose if the MHRA has licensed those drugs for that purpose.

Amendment 98, page 21, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to approve any drugs or other substance if they conclude that there are no appropriate drugs or other substances to approve.”

If the Secretary of State concludes that no drugs or substance is appropriate to be used, then the Secretary of State is not required by subclause 25(1) to approve any.

Amendment 27, page 21, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) The doses and types of lethal drugs specified in any regulations made under subsection (1) must be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

(2B) The doses and types of lethal drugs to bring about the person’s death must be recommended by the guidelines of either—

(a) the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, or

(b) the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales, as appropriate, prior to licensing.”

This amendment will require the doses and types of lethal drugs to be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and to be recommended by either the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales as appropriate prior to licensing.

Amendment 99, page 21, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament unless they also lay before both Houses a report setting out all relevant information on the likely time to death, complications (including pain) and likely side effect.”

This amendment requires that a report be provided to Parliament setting out the information available on the proposed drugs, including time to death, complications (including pain) and likely side effects. Such a report is required before Parliament votes to approve the drugs or substance. See consequential Amendment 100.

Amendment 69, page 21, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) See section (Regulation of approved substances and devices for self-administration) for powers to make provision about—

(a) approved substances, and

(b) devices for use or used in connection with the self-administration of approved substances.”

This is consequential on NC13.

Amendment 53, line 24, leave out clause 34

This amendment is consequential on NC13.

Amendment 54, line 34, leave out clause 35

This amendment is consequential on NC15.

Amendment 19, in clause 36, page 27, line 17, at end insert—

“(ba) how the provisions of this Act relate to the operation of—

(i) the Government’s strategy on suicide prevention,

(ii) the duties on clinicians and others to secure the right to life, including of those at risk of suicide, under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 (Right to Life) set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998,

(iii) the Mental Health Act 1983,

(iv) deprivation of liberty safeguards as set out in Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and

(v) liberty protection safeguards as set out in Schedule AA1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”

Amendment 70, page 27, line 20, at end insert—

“(ca) ensuring effective communication in connection with persons seeking assistance under this Act to end their own lives, including the use of interpreters;”

This amendment provides that a code of practice must be issued covering ensuring effective communication in connection with persons seeking assistance under the Bill.

Amendment 108, page 27, line 31, at end insert—

“(h) how the provisions of this Act, including but not limited to section 23, interact with the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967.”

Amendment 71, page 27, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 70.

Amendment 20, page 28, line 5, leave out subsection (8) and insert—

“(8) If it appears to a court or tribunal conducting any criminal or civil proceedings that—

(a) a provision of a code, or

(b) a failure to comply with a code,

is relevant to a question arising in the proceedings, the provision or failure must be taken into account in deciding the question.”

Amendment 89, page 28, line 7, leave out clause 37.

This amendment is consequential on NC20.

Amendment 34, in clause 37, page 28, line 14, at end insert—

“(ii) persons from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities and advocate groups representing those communities, and

(iii) representatives of the healthcare sector, including persons who work in hospices.”

Amendment 12, clause 38, page 28, line 36, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”

This amendment would prevent section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the purposes of the NHS, from being amended by regulations. Its effect would be to require changes to be made by an Act of Parliament instead.

Amendment 105, page 29, line 4, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment 15, page 29, line 5, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under this section must provide that, where a body other than a public authority provides voluntary assisted dying services under subsection (1), that body must publish an annual statement that includes information on the following—

(a) the number of persons to whom the body has provided a preliminary discussion under section 5(3);

(b) the number of to persons whom the body has assessed under section 9(1);

(c) the number of persons whom the body has assessed under section 10(1);

(d) the number of persons to whom assistance has been provided under section 23(2);

(e) the cost and revenue associated with providing such assistance; and

(f) any other matter that the Secretary of State may specify.”

This amendment would require private providers of the services permitted under the Act to publish annual statements of the numbers of people to whom they have provided those services. It would also require them to disclose their associated costs and revenue.

Amendment 92, in clause 39, page 29, line 13, leave out from “Wales” to end of line 14.

Amendment 106, page 29, line 16, leave out subsection (2)(a).

Amendment 107, page 29, line 22, leave out subsection (4)(a).

This amendment and amendment 93 ensure that the power under subsection (3) also covers provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of services, so far as such provision is outside the legislative competence of the Senedd.

Amendment 93, page 29, line 27, at end insert—

“(b) a reference to provision about voluntary assisted dying services includes in particular provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of such services.”

See the statement for Amendment 92.

Amendment 29, in clause 40, page 30, line 5, at end insert—

“(5) Any notification to the Commissioner made pursuant to regulations under this section must be forwarded by the Commissioner to the relevant Chief Medical Officer.

(6) The relevant Chief Medical Officer may exercise any power granted to the Commissioner under subsection (2).

(7) In this section “relevant Chief Medical Officer” has the meaning given by section 37(5).”

Amendment 21, in clause 43, page 31, line 15, at end insert—

“(4) For the first reporting period referred to under subsection (2) (a) the report must set out an assessment of the state of health services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs and the implications of this Act on those services.

(5) The report under subsection (4) must, in particular, include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate health services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs, including—

(a) pain and symptom management;

(b) psychological support for those persons and their families;

(c) information about palliative care and how to access it.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to prepare and publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end of life care services as part of the first report on implementation of the Act (to be undertaken within 1 year of the Act being passed). This would mirror the assessment already required as part of the 5 year review of the act.

Amendment 28, page 31, line 32, leave out clause 45.

This amendment is linked to NC4.

Amendment 35, clause 45, page 32, line 20, after “characteristics” insert

“, including persons representing Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities,”.

Amendment 36, in clause 46, page 33, line 11, after “disabilities” insert

“, and

(ii) persons from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities”.

Amendment 90, page 33, line 18, leave out clause 47.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 39, in clause 47, page 33, line 19, after “provided” insert “in Wales”.

This amendment specifies that this section applies only to services provided in Wales.

Amendment 40, page 33, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) Any entity providing a service or fulfilling a function under this Act must take all reasonable steps to ensure the particular health professionals providing a service or fulfilling a function under sections 5, 9,10, 12, 15, and 23 have fluent proficiency in the Welsh language, if the services are to be provided to a person in Welsh under subsection (1).

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “fluent” includes speaking fluent Welsh in order to enable conversations with the person in Welsh.

(2C) The Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure members of Assisted Dying Panels will, if the person to whom the referral relates has asked for services to be provided in Welsh, when hearing from or questioning that person under section 15(4)(b), do so in Welsh.”

Amendment 103, in clause 50, page 34, line 24, leave out from “under” to end of line 29 and insert

“any provision of this Act unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require all statutory instruments in the Act, except commencement orders, to be made by the draft affirmative procedure. It is linked with Amendment 104 which creates the power for the Secretary of State to use the made affirmative procedure in cases of emergency.

Amendment 72, page 34, line 24, after “10(9)”, insert—

“(Regulation of approved substances and devices for self-administration),”.

This amendment provides that regulations under NC13 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Amendment 50, page 34, line 24, after “10(9),” insert “(Doctor independence)”.

This amendment makes regulations under NC7 [Doctor independence] subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 100, page 34, line 24, after “10(9),” insert “25(1)”.

This amendment makes regulations under clause 25(1) subject to the draft affirmative procedure. It is consequential on Amendment 99.

Amendment 73, page 34, line 25, leave out “or 39” and insert—

“39, or (prohibition on advertising)”.

This amendment provides that regulations under NC14 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Amendment 88, page 34, line 25, after “39” insert “or (Collection of statistics)”.

This amendment provides that the changes to NS2 should be made by affirmative regulations, and is consequential to NS2.

Amendment 104, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) If they reasonably consider it urgent and necessary for the protection of others, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may dispense with the requirement to lay a draft statutory instrument.”

This amendment is linked with Amendment 103. It creates the power for the Secretary of State to use the made affirmative procedure in cases of emergency (this means that it would come into effect straight away but there would be a vote afterwards).

Amendment 76, in clause 53, page 36, line 12, at beginning insert “Subject as follows,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 77.

Amendment 77, page 36, line 12, at end insert “only.

(2) Sections (Regulation of approved substances and devices for self-administration), (Prohibition on advertising), 50 and 52, this section, and sections 54 and 55 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(3) Section (No obligation to provide assistance etc)(8) and Schedule (Protection from detriment) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”

This amendment provides for NC13 (regulation of approved substances etc) and NC14 (prohibition on advertising), and the general provisions of the Bill, to extend to each part of the United Kingdom; and for NC10 (no obligation to provide assistance etc) and NS1 (protection from detriment) to extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

Amendment (a) to amendment 77, in subsection (2), leave out

“(Regulation of approved substances and devices for self-administration),”.

This would provide that NC13 (regulation of approved substances etc…) does not extend to each part of the United Kingdom and only applies, like most of this Bill, to England and Wales.

Amendment (b) to amendment 77, in subsection (3), leave out “and Scotland”.

This amendment would provide that subsection (8) of NC10 (no obligation to provide assistance) and NS1 (protection from detriment) only extend to England and Wales.

Amendment 42, in clause 54, page 36, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

“(2) In relation to England, the provisions of this Act not brought into force by subsection (1) come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment will mean that, except as provided by subsection (1), provisions of the Bill will only commence in England when the Secretary of State makes a commencement order, and not automatically.

Amendment 37, in clause 54, page 36, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Regulations under this section cannot be made unless the Secretary of State has previously—

(a) made a statement to the effect that in their view the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights; or

(b) made a statement to the effect that although they are unable to make a statement under subsection (4)(a), the Government nevertheless wishes to proceed with commencing provisions of the Act.

(4A) The statement required by subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(4B) A statement under subsection (4)(b) must include the steps the Government plans to take to resolve any incompatibility.”

Amendment 3, page 36, line 22, leave out “four” and insert “three”.

Amendment 94, page 36, line 25, leave out “Wales” and insert—

“sections 39(1) and (2) and (Provision about the Welsh language)(2) and (3) which come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment provides that the Welsh Ministers have power to commence clauses 39(1) and (2) and NC21(2) and (3), and that other provisions of the Bill come into force in accordance with subsections (1) to (4) of this clause.

Amendment 95, page 36, line 26, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 94.

New schedule 2—Statistics to be collected—

“Characteristics

1 The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner must collect the following information about persons requesting assisted dying—

(a) sex,

(b) age,

(c) self-reported ethnicity,

(d) level of education,

(e) Index of Multiple Deprivation based on postcode,

(f) region of residence,

(g) marital status,

(h) living status (alone, with others, in a care home etc),

(i) main condition leading to “terminal illness” fulfilment,

(j) other medical conditions,

(k) other psychiatric / mental health conditions,

(l) presence of physical disability, and

(m) presence of intellectual disability.

Health and Care Support

2 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about health and care support—

(a) whether the person was, before the request—

(i) under a specialist palliative care team, and

(ii) under a psychiatry team,

(b) whether following the request there has been—

(i) referral to specialist palliative care team, and

(ii) referral to psychiatry team following request.

Information about requests

3 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the requests for assistance—

(a) the main reason for requesting assisted dying,

(b) any other subsidiary reason for requesting assisted dying,

(c) any previous requests for assisted dying from that patient,

(d) time between first request and subsequent request(s),

(e) number of times a second opinion was requested under section 10, and

(f) number of times the second opinion disagreed with the first.

Information about refused requests

4 The Commissioner must collect statistics following information about requests that are refused—

(a) at what stage of the process was the request refused, and

(b) reasons for refusal.

Information about the process

5 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the process—

(a) time from initial discussion to first declaration,

(b) time from first declaration to first doctor’s assessment,

(c) time from first doctor’s assessment to second doctor’s assessment,

(d) time from second doctor’s assessment to panel approval,

(e) time from panel approval to second declaration,

(f) time from second declaration to provision of assistance to self-administer lethal drugs,

(g) time from panel approval to death (whether by lethal drug or natural causes),

(h) duration of relationship between patient and coordinating doctor at first request, and

(i) use of a proxy and reason for using proxy.

Information about clinicians and pharmacies

6 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about clinicians and pharmacies—

(a) number of clinicians participating, their speciality, and number of assisted deaths each carries out per year, and

(b) number of participating pharmacies; number of times assisted dying drugs are dispensed.

Information about Assisted Dying Panel processes

7 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about Assisted Dying Panel process—

(a) number of applications made,

(b) number of applications granted and rejected,

(c) reasons for rejection,

(d) whether family members informed of proceedings,

(e) whether family members took part in proceedings,

(f) number of requests for reconsideration made,

(g) number of reconsideration requests granted and rejected, and

(h) reasons for granting requests.

Information on approved substances

8 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the approved substances—

(a) name of drug(s) used for the assisted death,

(b) whether intravenous or oral self-administration is used,

(c) presence and nature of complications following self-administration of drugs (vomiting, regurgitation, seizures, regained consciousness, other),

(d) time from self-administration to loss of consciousness,

(e) time from self-administration to death,

(f) whether emergency services called at any time following self-administration of drugs,

(g) location of death,

(h) health care professionals present at self-administration,

(i) non-professionals present at self-administration,

(j) health care professionals present at death,

(k) non-professionals present at death.”

Amendment 82, in schedule 2, page 41, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—

“(1) The Judicial Appointments Commission must make arrangements for the appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit as members of panels.”

This amendment requires that panel members be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is linked with Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Amendment 83, page 41, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—

“but has not reached the age specified in section 11 (Tenure of office of judges of Senior Courts) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”

This amendment requires that the legal member of the Panel is someone who holds high judicial office or has held high judicial office but not yet reached the mandatory retirement age. It is linked with Amendments 83, 84, 85, and 86.

Amendment 41, page 41, line 34, at end insert—

“(2A) In Wales, the Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure each member of a panel has fluent proficiency in the Welsh language if services or functions in the Act are to be provided to an individual in Welsh under section 47(1).

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “fluent” includes speaking fluent Welsh.”

Amendment 84, page 42, line 2, leave out “or deputy judge”.

This amendment ensures that only High Court judges, and not deputy High Court judges, can chair the panel. It is linked with Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Amendment 85, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) All judges of the High Court are automatically on the list and will remain so for the duration of their appointment to the High Court.

(5) If they have not already, all persons on the list (whether as a legal member, psychiatrist member, or social care member) must take the judicial oath.”

This amendment makes all High Court judges automatically eligible to chair panels without needing further application and it requires that the non-legal members take the judicial oath before they can sit. It is linked with Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Amendment 86, page 43, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Panels shall have the same powers, privileges and authority as the High Court.”

This amendment gives the panel the same powers as the High Court. It is linked with Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a privilege to open today’s debate and to present to the House the amendments tabled in my name, a number of which relate to issues that I promised to return to when they were raised in Committee. All amendments in my name have been drafted with technical advice and expertise from civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, along with the brilliant Government Legal Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, in order to make the Bill workable and to give coherence to the statute book, as confirmed by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), in their recent letter to MPs. Some are technical and drafting amendments, and all are there to strengthen the Bill, so I hope that colleagues will be able to support them, wherever they stand on the principle of assisted dying.

I know that many colleagues wish to speak today, so I will endeavour to speak with brevity. I will speak first to the new clauses that stand in my name, starting with new clause 13. This important new clause and the related amendments would create a regulatory framework and safeguards around the approved substances referred to in the Bill by imposing a duty to make regulations about those substances and a power to make regulations about devices for use in connection with their self-administration.

Amendment 72 provides that the regulations relating to approved substances would be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that they must be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses, providing important parliamentary oversight. These measures ensure that the substances used in assisted dying are subject to a specific and appropriate regulatory regime.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I am genuinely looking for clarification. As a former Cabinet Minister in the Scottish Government, I jealously guard the devolution settlement. I wonder how the extension of some of these clauses to include Scotland will be interpreted. What conversations have taken place between my hon. Friend, Scotland’s Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have taken legal advice from Government officials to ensure that devolution is respected at every stage in proceedings. Where legislation that affects other jurisdictions needs to be amended, those conversations have already started and will continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

No, I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

The substances that would be used would not be new substances. As we know, assisted dying is available in many other jurisdictions, and there are substances that have been used safely and, in some cases, for many years. Their safety and efficacy has been proven around the world, but they do need to be treated differently, which is the purpose of new clause 13.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to make some progress.

However, it is most likely that these products are already licensed for other purposes. They could well be regulated through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and within the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 for the purposes of the Bill, but it is important that time is given—

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will.

[Cat Eccles]

As an operating department practitioner with more than 20 years of experience, I emphasise that controlling and administering drugs is already a key part of every healthcare professional’s practice. Medicines management is at the front and centre of everything we do when handling drugs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the safeguards added to this Bill, along with the existing frameworks, are more than adequate to deal with this?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her expertise, along with other colleagues with medical backgrounds who have worked with me on this amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

Given what you have said, Mr Speaker, I will make some progress. [Interruption.] A lot of Members wish to speak today.

I now turn to new clause 14 and amendment 73. The new clause imposes a duty to make regulations prohibiting advertising of services related to voluntary assisted dying. This issue was discussed in Committee, following an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). It was proposed that there should be no advertising of assisted dying services. I agree, and there was a consensus on that in the Committee. There were some issues with the previous amendment’s workability, so I gave a commitment to return to the matter on Report—hence the inclusion of this new clause. Amendment 73 provides that regulations under new clause 14 would be subject to the affirmative procedure, providing parliamentary oversight.

[Jim Shannon]

On the evidential basis, on page 15 of today’s edition of The Times there is a story about a gentleman who was born in South Africa and lives in Australia. He has come to London this week for this particular Bill in order to give his story. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and told he had only two weeks to live: he lived for three years and one month, and he is still living. There is a growing evidential basis. He said that he was never afraid to die, but he says that he is afraid of the process of dying, and the hon. Lady is the initiator of that. Will she acknowledge the evidential basis and the importance of this subject? Does she realise that the evidential basis against this Bill is growing?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, although I am not sure that it is relevant to the banning of advertising for assisted dying services, which I will try to stay focused on.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am afraid that I am going to have to make some progress, based on the number of Members who wish to speak today.

I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for working with me on amendment 73, and I am very pleased that they support it.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will not—sorry.

New clause 15 and amendment 54 make changes to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that the Bill would necessitate. They would insert a new clause into the Act to provide that deaths that occur in accordance with the Bill will be certified by an attending practitioner and medical examiner and will not be subject to a coronial investigation.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am afraid not.

Coroners investigate suspicious or violent deaths, or situations in which the cause of death is unknown. Assisted deaths would not fall into these categories, and there would therefore be no need for a default coronial investigation. This will ensure that any unnecessary delays and distress for bereaved families are avoided. These are not unexpected deaths; sadly, they were inevitable.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will not, I am afraid.

It is the manner and timing of their death about which the patient will make a legal, informed choice, having been thoroughly assessed. As Professor Aneez Esmail has said, “I cannot think of any death that would be the subject of greater scrutiny in advance of the person dying than an assisted death. The process far exceeds the level of safeguarding that is in place for many of the deaths that are, at present, routinely reviewed by medical examiners and not referred to a coroner.” Of course, anyone can report a death—including an assisted death—to the coroner, or indeed to the police, if they have any concerns that it was not carried out in accordance with the Act, and if any offences have been committed, they will be investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.

The Secretary of State must also consult providers of health and care services, including palliative and end-of-life care. I am really pleased that Hospice UK is supporting this amendment—it is very important that those voices are heard. The Secretary of State can also consult anyone else they feel to be appropriate, creating a flexible and holistic approach.

Turning to devolution, this long-overdue reform would apply to England and Wales, which share a criminal justice system. Health is a devolved matter, of course, and I have recognised from the outset that the legislation must respect devolution. I am fully committed to observing the same conventions that the Government would if this were a Government Bill. I have worked with UK Government officials to ensure that the right steps are taken at the right time by the right people. I have engaged with colleagues in the Welsh Government—I met the Welsh Health Minister in Cardiff, and there have been ongoing detailed discussions between the two teams of Government officials to ensure the workability of the legislation in both jurisdictions, in line with the devolution settlement.

Amendments 92 to 95 also ensure that the devolution settlement is respected and adhered to. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), not only for their diligent work on the Bill Committee but for working with me on the amendments in relation to Wales, and I thank the Welsh Government for their guidance and support. I hope that colleagues across the House can support these new clauses and amendments.

I now turn to new clause 21, which makes specific provision about the use of the Welsh language. The conversations that happen at the end of a person’s life are extremely personal and should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. It is very important that they are conducted in the best interests of the patient, and a big part of that is using clear communication. In this respect, language matters, so if a patient in Wales has Welsh as their first or preferred language, all efforts should be made to ensure they can communicate with voluntary assisted dying services in Welsh. I committed to this in Committee, and have made good on that commitment.

Turning to amendments 76 and 77, as with any Bill, it is important that the amending legislation secures overall coherence with the statute book. As such, the clauses relating to medicines, advertising and employment protections amend, or confer power to amend, other legislation that currently extends to parts of the UK. Of course, this does not mean the provision of assisted dying, but, for example, they extend the prohibition on advertising to the whole of the UK and apply the employment protections in the Bill to Scotland. That is in line with the guidance I have received from legal experts, and as such I hope all colleagues can support these amendments. If the Bill passes, I will, if necessary, work with other devolved Administrations in the same way as I have worked with the Welsh Government to ensure that devolution is respected.

That concludes the explanations of the amendments tabled in my name. Many colleagues are keen to speak, so I am not going to comment on all the amendments in the group; I will just make two comments about amendments that are not in my name, and allow other people plenty of time to speak.

Amendment 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), would not only try to remove the backstop for the provision of assisted dying in England, but create a number of other issues in relation to commencement. If Parliament chooses to give this choice to terminally ill people, there cannot be a clause in the Bill that would prevent that from being available as soon as it was safe and practicable. But the amendment would remove the four-year backstop. It would also prevent the appointment of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and create a potential commencement gap between England and Wales. Given that, I have been strongly advised that the amendment would create serious workability issues. I urge colleagues who want an operable Bill to join me in rejecting the amendment.

To finish, I am pleased to support amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I thank her for her engagement with the Bill and the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care, as part of the first report on the implementation of the Act, mirroring the assessment already required as part of the five-year review.

Although the Bill seeks to address what in some respects is a very specific issue in terms of the failings of the current law, it has become part of a much-needed broader conversation about death, dying and end-of-life care. We all have our own experiences of death, loss and grief, and we do not talk about them enough. I am really pleased that the Bill has led to many conversations up and down the country; whatever our views, that has to be a positive thing.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nearly finished.

I have had many such conversations over recent months with those who support the amendment, including with palliative care doctors, nurses, hospice staff, GPs, Hospice UK and Marie Curie. I thank them all for their constructive engagement with the Bill. I cannot imagine that anyone in this place is not truly grateful for the outstanding work done every day by the wonderful people working in palliative and end-of-life care in every one of our constituencies. Many of us, if not most of us, will have personal experience of the kindness and compassion that those people have shown to our own families and friends.

But this is not an either/or conversation. Palliative and end-of-life care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally ill patients the care and choice that they deserve in their final days. Just as there should not be an either/or for dying people, there should also not be an either/or for us as legislators in having to choose between supporting assisted dying or other end-of-life choices. That is why I am supporting amendment 21: to ensure that in this place we channel our energies into supporting all options available to terminally ill people—something that I have always committed to do.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a privilege to be called at this stage in the debate. My principal reason for voting against the Bill on Second Reading was my concern that vulnerable people would be put at risk. I agreed to serve on the Bill Committee to do what I could to allay my concerns about that issue and address some of the issues raised by others. I do not think that the revised version of the Bill properly or completely reflects the concerns expressed on a multitude of different occasions. Consequently, it does not fully mitigate the risks to vulnerable groups.

We all recognise that decision making of any kind does not take place in a vacuum and that, in all parts of life, we live in a particular context. The Equality Act 2010 recognises that many people face discrimination or unfair treatment as a result of particular characteristics and that reasonable steps should be taken to eliminate that. It was very clear from the oral evidence sessions that particular care has to be taken to assess the context within which people are making the decision to seek an assisted death: if they suffer from a mental illness or eating disorder, if they are from a low-income or ethnic minority background, if they suffer from a disability or if they are in an abusive relationship. Those factors are likely to lead to an increased risk that someone will seek an assisted death that they would not have sought if those factors were not present.

In Committee, I and others made the point that it would have been desirable to have received an equality impact assessment before the detailed work of Committee scrutiny had begun, so that Committee members had a sense of how the proposed legislation would impact groups that we know can suffer disproportionate levels of disadvantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and there is a wider point here about the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. This would be the third such power added to the Bill since Second Reading. At that stage, it had none. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has said that “excessive reliance” on Henry VIII powers

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive”,

and he is right.

Away from matters of constitutional principle, I am especially concerned about the practical impact of such a power, which would allow a future Secretary of State to change the law as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. This is the Act that contains the offence of encouraging or assisting a suicide. Ministers have confirmed that the Bill leaves the offence in place in all cases except where a medical practitioner assists a person to die under its provisions. We must surely therefore not hand the power to a future Secretary of State to weaken or even abolish that offence without the need for primary legislation. My amendment specifies that the Suicide Act cannot be amended in that way.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley recognises that my amendment does not seek to undo or undermine her new clause, but rather to build on it and to ensure that the ban she intends to deliver does not collapse around the loophole at its heart.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and there is consensus across the House about banning the advertising of assisted dying services. His amendment, though, would be slightly limited in that it makes just two exceptions. There would probably need to be a broader piece of work on that, but I commit to working with him if he is interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I agree wholeheartedly. I recognise that that was a major reason that many colleagues gave at earlier points in our discussions and deliberations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive engagement, but he did not vote for the Bill when it included a High Court judge, and now he is trying to reintroduce a High Court judge. Is there a version of the Bill that he would vote for if it had some sort of judicial oversight other than a commissioner who is a judge or a retired judge, a deputy commissioner who is a judge or a retired judge, and someone on the panel who is a legal expert?

[John Glen]

I have been very clear that I have tabled my amendments in a constructive way to reflect the will that the hon. Lady has expressed, but to recognise the meaningful dilution in the authority of the process and what can reasonably be amended to invigorate it, based on the principles that I think were intended at the outset.

I will revert to the point I was making about the judiciary. They have a commitment to uphold the law, and that should be the standard we are looking for when it comes to matters of life and death. The Judicial Appointments Commission already conducts appointments for all tribunals, including lay members. The Government’s impact assessment compared the panel to the mental health tribunal. All appointments to the mental health tribunal, including the non-legal members, are made by the Judicial Appointments Commission, so this would not be a novel function for it.

Let me move on to amendment 85, which would ensure that all members of the panel have to take the judicial oath if they have not done so already. If other amendments pass, amendment 85 would be necessary only for the non-legal members, and it is crucial for public confidence that the judicial oath is taken.

Amendments 83 and 84 seek to preserve an important element of the Bill as originally presented to the House. They would ensure that the most senior decision-making figure, the chair of the panel, is a High Court judge with all the experience, responsibility and professionalism that that implies. Under these amendments, all High Court judges would be automatically eligible. They would need to be currently serving or at least be below retirement age, and would have to be a judge of the highest authority and not a deputy judge. Members of this House and the public were originally told that this would be a safe Bill precisely because it would have a High Court judge. That was a persuasive promise, and I think there is a way to honour it, even in the new version of the Bill.

I will briefly mention the retirement age, because it is important. It used to be 70, but judges can now continue until they are 75. However, there is no age limit for members of the panel. If we are saying that an 80-year-old retired judge is still with it and is able to decide on matters of life and death, why are they too old to help clear the backlog of criminal cases? That seems to be a meaningful anomaly.

I have been very clear about the purpose of my amendments. I have tabled them in the spirit of trying to strengthen the Bill and return it to what was intended, so that it can meet the expectations of so many Members who supported it at an earlier point.